My Reasons

Glenn Reynolds now sees a Miers Meltdown and, unusually for Instapundit, enabled comments. Till they quit. So I'm posting my objections to Miers here:

1. She isn't the most qualified candidate. She graduated from a third tier law school, clerked for a trial, not appellate court, practiced law with a scant appellate record, published little or no scholarly work, and thus only minimal exposure to constitutional issues, with serious questions about performance in her current job (a topic I'll address Tuesday). Contrary to the claims of Beldar and The Anchoress, objecting to an "0-in-6" record is neither elitist nor anti-Texas bias: it's the wisdom of experience. Especially with several better-qualified options available.



2. There's little evidence she'd become a reliable conservative vote on the Court, much less a Justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, as the President promised.



3. Suspending judgment until Senate hearings isn't an option: "Having defended Roberts's right to be silent before the Senate, conservatives face an awkward conflict between blind faith and principle."



4. Even were Justice Miers reliably conservative, that's not enough. Constitutional conservatives look more to process than outcome. What matters is her reasoning, her writing, her persuasiveness, as David Limbaugh said:

   Most, if not all, of the liberal justices on the Court are intellectual heavyweights. When a vacancy on the Court occurs, the president has a solemn duty to nominate the best and the brightest. He should choose not only strict constructionists, but those who can hold their own against the liberal activist justices who are steadily rewriting the Constitution and removing, brick by brick, its foundation.

5. Miers's thin record suggests vulnerability to the "Greenhouse effect."



6. The Miers nomination reveals the President erring like a liberal: treating the Supreme Court as a law-making, political branch of government. Add the cronyism and the nomination could establish a horrible precedent for future Democrat Presidents.



7. Even were politics relevant, Bush compromised long before the necessity for compromise was established. The President made the classic CEO mistake--he negotiated with himself.



8. It's far from clear that compromise today brings electoral victory tomorrow:

   Let 'um reject Janice Rogers Brown--we'd nominate Owen. Let 'um reject Owen--we'd nominate Alito. Either would be higher ground on which to fight in '06.

Though it pains me to depart from the President, Miers should withdraw before the Senate votes.

More:

Right Wing News' John Hawkins says opposition isn't elitism. In fact, as Bernard at A Certain Slant of Light observes, pro-Miers lawyer/talk radio host/blogger Hugh Hewitt edges toward elitism by attacking Miers's opponents and branding them "knuckleheads." What explains Hewitt's uncompromising support? Also, Frank Laughter at Common Sense Junction posted links to bloggers opposing Miers.

Still More:

The WSJ's John Fund:

[T]he evidence of Ms. Miers's views on jurisprudence resemble a beach on which someone has walked without leaving any footprints: no court opinions, no law review articles, and no internal memos that President Bush is going to share with the Senate. . .

Harriet Miers is unquestionably a fine lawyer and a woman of great character. But her record on constitutional issues is nil, and it is therefore understandable that conservatives, having been burned at least seven times in the past 50 years, would be hesitant about supporting her nomination. . .

Indeed, in many ways, Ms. Miers resembles the early Sandra Day O'Connor, another elected official who backed some liberal positions during her time in the Arizona Legislature. As Justice O'Connor began drifting to the center she became the crucial swing vote on a host of cases. Legal scholars began referring to the "O'Connor Court." Now, with Ms. Miers slated to take the O'Connor seat it may become the "Miers Court."

"This is the most closely divided court in history," says Jay Sekulow, a conservative legal activist who backs Ms. Miers. "Everybody knows what is at stake here." With such high stakes, it should disappoint everyone that the Senate will now have to debate the confirmation of a nominee who, when it comes to Constitutional law, resembles a secret agent more than a scholar.

More x 3:

Tom McGuire, host of Just One Minute, links to Tradesports' electronic market on the Miers confirmation. On October 5th, the bidding opened at just over 92, but the probability has fallen below 70, with triple last week's daily volume:



(source: Tradesports)

More for the Bear:

NZ Bear of the Truth Laid Bear is tracking bloggers' views on the Miers nomination. I've not changed my view: I oppose the Miers nomination.