John Fund joins the Harriet Miers doubters
Wall Street Journal editorial page columnist John Fund wasn’t exactly thrilled by Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court, but he was willing to wait ’til the hearings to ask questions. He now believes that “questions about Ms. Miers should be raised now–and loudly–because she has spent her entire life avoiding giving a clear picture of herself.”
Fund is not impressed by the weak defense mounted by the White House for her nomination:
It is traditional for nominees to remain silent until their confirmation hearings. But previous nominees, while unable to speak for themselves, have been able to deploy an array of people to speak persuasively on their behalf. In this case, the White House spin team has been pathetic, dismissing much of the criticism of Ms. Miers as “elitism” or even echoing Democratic senators who view it as “sexist.” But it was Richard Land , president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who went so far as to paint Ms. Miers as virtually a tool of the man who has been her client for the past decade. “In Texas, we have two important values, courage and loyalty,” he told a conference call of conservative leaders last Thursday. “If Harriet Miers didn’t rule the way George W. Bush thought she would, he would see that as an act of betrayal and so would she.” That is an argument in her favor. It sounds more like a blood oath than a dignified nomination process aimed at finding the most qualified individual possible.
Then Fund takes a look at Miers track record, such as it is, and it is not pretty.
