Reid Hearts Miers

So Harry Reid did indeed suggest Miers, and has promised not to use the cronyism argument against her.

Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) urged President Bush to pick White House counsel Harriet Miers as his nominee to the Supreme Court, RAW STORY can confirm.

In a conference call held with liberal bloggers last week, Reid declared that he had told Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card that Miers was a good choice for the Court.

"I said, 'I think that rather than looking at the people your lawyer’s recommending, pick her," the senator remarked. "The reason I like her is that she’s the first woman to be president of the very, very large Texas bar association, she was a partner in a law firm, she’s actually tried cases, she was a trial lawyer, and she’s had experience here. I could accept that. And if that fits into the cronyism argument, I will include everybody as a crony, but not her, when I make my case."

I have very mixed feelings about this decision. One on hand, I see the wisdom in suggesting someone perceived to be a moderate, especially considering there are wingnuts like Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen waiting in the wings. That Bush is running scared from a filibuster fight, and was forced into choosing someone suggested by the opposition has angered his base, works in our favor. And, much like with Roberts, filibustering a SCOTUS nominee has no real advantage when, in the end, Bush is going to get someone that he wants eventually, anyway. Better to damn his nominee with faint praise and cause him to rile his base instead.

On the other hand, Miers is actively pro-life. On a key Democratic issue, she’s not moderate at all. It should be remembered that Reid is pro-life, too, so perhaps this simply isn’t an issue for him, but it’s certainly an issue for most Democrats. Supporting the nomination of a pro-lifer to the SCOTUS, particularly in replacement of a swing-vote on the issue, seems a bit foolish. As does plainly stating the cronyism argument won’t be used by the opposition leader. Fine, if he didn’t plan to use it (how could he, after suggesting her?), but it risks stealing the thunder from other Dems who could have effectively used the argument without having his words used against them, further splitting Bush’s base between the corporate cronies and the very unhappy social conservatives.

I’m not convinced this was a great move. Considering the unlikelihood of discerning during her nomination hearing how Miers would cast a vote if Roe is revisited, I don’t know if we’ll find out whether it was smart or not if and until she has the opportunity to cast a vote on a revisitation of Roe, at which time, it could be too late to matter.