QuagMiers

Whether or not the Harriet Miers SCOTUS nomination is withdrawn before Senate confirmation hearings convene in two weeks, it's still pretty much playing out the string.

Another major newspaper, the Arizona Republic, has called for the President to "to withdraw the Miers nomination, and move on." The American Spectator reminds us today that a Justice Miers would almost certainly have to recuse herself, along with Chief Justice Roberts, from cases involving national security issues, in particular Hamdan v. Bush, involving applicability of the Geneva Conventions to terror detainees. Since the oligarchist bloc (Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer) can be counted on to rule against the White House and overturn the appellate court decision, putting Miers on the court all but guarantees that the President's war-fighting authority will be significantly and unconstitutionally curtail, if not outright crippled. And the Wall Street Journal's John Fund posted what amounts to a pre-post-mortem on the Miers nomination this morning.

The bi-partisan demand for internal White House documents pertaining to Harriet Miers grew louder over the weekend, something that, given what a complete blank slate this nominee is, and the magnitude of the office to which she is being appointed, is a lot more understandable now than it was during John Roberts' confirmation process. And the President continued to refuse, maintaining the "trust me" gambit and growling that, "People can learn about Harriet Miers through hearings, but we are not going to destroy this business about people being able to walk into the Oval Office to say, Mr. President, this is my advice," even though (1) we all know that the sum total of whatever she says before the Judiciary Committee that doesn't involve blank stares and verbal punting will boil down to "I can't comment," and (2) the White House acceded to most (not all) of Senate Democrats' document requests regarding Chief Justice Roberts.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a collision course. An inter-branch game of "chicken" with Harriet Miers smack in the middle. And if the White House doesn't blink, its nomination will pay the price.

And that may simply be the piece de resistance:

[C]omments by a number of senators indicate that President Bush's nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor may have to turn in a bravura performance to overcome the skepticism that crosses ideological lines.

Miers, 60, a longtime Bush associate serving as White House counsel, initially came under fire from conservative commentators such as George Will and Peggy Noonan. But only a handful of Senate Republicans joined in the criticism, including Sam Brownback of Kansas, who says he would have preferred a candidate with a clearer record of opposing abortion.

Now, centrist Republicans and Democrats whose votes are crucial to winning confirmation are expressing concerns. Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, last week rated Miers' confirmation battle as "uphill." A moderate Republican, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, said she's worried about Miers' stance on abortion....

The same reticence that caused Specter and Leahy to feel short-shrifted by Miers' written answers is leaving some senators with doubts about her intellect.

"I didn't learn much about her," Senator Ken Salazar said after a 55-minute meeting last week. "In terms of whether she has the qualifications, I'm still not sure."

Even the White House itself is privately "concerned" about how Miers is likely to do before the Judiciary Committee (via the Corner):

Behind the scenes, however, the comfort level is very low. Some White House officials are already worried that Miers's rehearsals for her hearings are not proceeding smoothly, according to current and former Administration sources who declined to be named because the sessions are secret.

The aforementioned John Fund echoed those candid Bushie sentiments:

President Bush has returned from a weekend in Camp David, where much of the discussion centered on the beleaguered nomination of Harriet Miers. While the President is determined to press forward, the prognosis he received was grim. Her visits with senators have gone poorly. Her written answers to questions from the Senate were sent back as if they were incomplete homework. The nominee herself has stumbled frequently in the tutorials in which government lawyers are grilling her in preparation for her November 7 hearings.

The Miers nomination is apparently viewed even internally as sufficiently moribund that vetting is already discretely underway toward the selection of a replacement nominee:

RedState is able to report this morning that, very quietly, certain third parties have begun going back through the list of potential judicial nominees at the behest of the White House. Sources tell RedState that while the White House intends to make a public display of moving the Miers nomination forward, the reality of the situation has been conveyed to the President — namely that it is increasingly likely that Harriet Miers will meet a bipartisan effort to block her nomination.

As a result of growing chatter about the nomination, the White House is, as the Washington Times reported, trying to develop an exit strategy. At the same time, the White House does not want to withdraw the nomination without having a replacement close by. Notwithstanding that, the White House is relying on trusted third parties to initially help reformulate a list of candidates that would unite and rally the base.

God, I hope so. Though some, even amongst our contributors, may not believe it, I haven't enjoyed the role of GOP iconoclast into which I've been pressed the past three weeks. I much prefer defending the President than blasting him into figurative chunky salsa. However, adherence to principle demanded it - something that, had the President practiced same, would have spared him this mess.

If the above report is true, nobody will be happier than I to rally around Miss Miers' replacement and launch into the confirmation showdown we've long anticipated.

It won't be pleasant for Mr. Bush, but then admitting FUBARs never is. But better early than late, as Mr. Fund punchlines:

When Douglas Ginsburg asked to have his nomination to the Supreme Court pulled in 1987 after allegations he had used marijuana, Ronald Reagan won unanimous confirmation in a Democratic Senate for Anthony Kennedy, then a judge with a decade-long conservative track record on a federal appellate court. Similarly, Mr. Bush recovered quickly from losing Linda Chavez as his nominee for Labor Secretary and Mr. Kerik as Secretary of Homeland Security. The damage to his relations with his conservative base would blow over quickly if Mr. Bush were to quickly name a well-qualified nominee who was not a sphinx when it came to judicial philosophy.

Perhaps this time he might even expand the talent pool to include -*gasp*- men.

I'd wager Republican women wouldn't mind....