Early judicial predictions

Earlier this morning, President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to take Sandra Day O'Connor's place on the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, the reaction from both the left and the right has been in agreement -- that Harriet Miers in an awful choice.

I can't help but agree. I've always said that I'm more of an ideologue than I am a partisan, which means that I'll more staunchly defend conservatism than I will the Republican party. And in this case, I'm going to have to do the former.

There are several things that President Bush has done that has really ruffled the feathers of the conservative movement in America. Massive federal spending, a gigantic prescription drug benefit, generally ineffective energy policy, and a horribly ineffective education bill. And now you can go ahead and add the nomination of Harriet Miers to the list.

Likewise, liberals are likely to scream 'cronyism' because Miers has such close personal connections to the administration. And for once, they may be right. Normally, I'm not bothered by nepotism. As far as I'm concerned, the most qualified person should get the job, and if that person happens to be the employer's friend, brother, uncle, former roommate, whatever -- that should be fine. But that doesn't seem to be the case with Miers. She simply does not seem to be the most qualified person for this job.

So this got me thinking. I have a feeling that Harriet Miers may very well be a 'sacrificial lamb.' I wouldn't be surprised at all if Bush submitted her knowing that she wouldn't get confirmed, but at the same time allowing the Democrats to empty their cannons on her. Then, once she gets shot down, he nominates a staunch conservative, putting the Democrats in a precarious predicament in that they wouldn't want to look like obstructionists.

But we'll see. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part.