Most of you have probably heard the Miers nomination has been withdrawn. Unfortunately, it looks like it was withdrawn for what I think are the wrong reasons. Social conservatives balked at her lack of zealotry on the abortion issue. Other conservative groups were concerned the lack of an identifiable judicial or governing philosophy. What’s interesting in all of the different reasons cited by various groups for opposing her nomination, not one comment is made by anyone about why Bush would’ve nominated someone so universally reviled. Wouldn’t answering that question give us more insight than anything that happens in the almost farcical confirmation hearings?

The ends don’t justify the means because the means have consequences. Whether it’s fighting the war on terror or trying to “improve” education, the Bush administration has chosen very peculiar paths to get where they are. The choices Bush has made obviously will affect his legacy. What will be that legacy? Dan Gillmor suggests one:

Abortion was never the issue that mattered to me. I take it for granted that Roe v. Wade will be overturned by the court as Bush and company remake it. Some state governments will ban it afterward; most will keep it legal.

I was always more worried about the above-the-law question — the insistence by this administration that it can make up new laws when it comes to people it claims to be terrorism suspects. What did Miers do in Bush’s government, which basically claims that the president or his agent can lock any of us up indefinitely and without access to a lawyer?

She was part of the government that has asserted dictatorial authority. That is more scary than her right-wing views on abortion, by far.

I also think that progressive Americans (as well as pragmatic Americans) that want sensible policies would do better than focusing on the abortion issue. The court is going to be pro-business to a fault. How they reinterpret the roles of the branches of our government will probably remake our country in several ways. More than the social issues, this interpretation will be the legacy of this administration and the Roberts court. At best, they’ll be a passive court, deferring to the other branches in all but the most obviously constitutional cases. The worst case is real judicial activism, not the straw man that the right wing throws up all the time. Things like Bush v. Gore which was a travesty regardless of whether you liked the outcome or not.

I’m really worried that left wing folks and progressives are missing the boat on convincing those of us closer to the center that these issues are serious. For example, Atrios, who has a sizable reach among progressive and left wing activists in addition to the typical Democratic fold, only comments so far as to misrepresent Ann Coulter’s gloating on CNN. There are so many good examples of how social conservatives are hoping for judicial activists that he didn’t need to misrepresent Coulter. Don’t get me wrong, I think she’s a zealot and horribly unreasonable and unethical in her own writing. That still doesn’t excuse getting her objections to the nominee wrong. Especially when, for once, she’s not completely off-the-wall bonkers.

Update: I edited my post as it was almost incoherent in places.

Harriet Miers has apparently set up a blog.

(via Atrios)

I’m tired of abortion activists. On both sides of the aisle (sorry Heidi). ConfirmThem.com (the PAC/527/whatever set up to pimp Bush’s choices for the Supreme Court) wrote the following today:

We’ve got a lot to learn about SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers. To hear the White House tell us, “With her distinguished career and extensive community involvement, Ms. Miers would bring a wealth of personal experience and diversity to the Supreme Court.”

Diversity. Sure she does. In fact, she gives money to Republicans *and* Democrats.

Mr. President, you’ve got some explaining to do. And please remember - we’ve been defending you these five years because of this moment.

Oh for criminey’s sake. Abortion (legal or illegal) is like 50th on the list of terrible problems facing the country right now. For anyone to chose to criticize or defend the entire presidency on any one single potential act is asinine. In this particular case, defending him from his other stupidity so he might choose a Supreme Court nominee you’ll get warm fuzzies about is stupid. Seriously. I mean, do you know anything about how they’re going to rule on any issue? How the hell could you? They don’t answer any questions worth a damn in the confirmation hearings. More importantly, are you thinking about the other rulings in which a “conservative” or “liberal” tendency will manifest itself? Or do you just pay attention to the scare flyers that people send you when they want money??

I have no doubt that abortion is important. I understand the religious debates, the moral issues (for and against), and the feminist issues. I maybe don’t feel them burning deep in my being, not being a woman or a particularly religious person, but I consider that an asset, not a hinderance. In the great scheme of things, we’re in much more trouble with the unsexy issues: deficits, education, foreign policy, and most importantly, petty corruption and basic competence.

To defend a president like this one on all of his other failings, including simple things like planning beyond 6 months from now (see post-Iraq War, Katrina/FEMA, and energy policy) because he might be able to nominate your ideal Supreme Court candidate is negligent. Ridiculous. Then, to turn around and complain about the decision he made… what the heck did you expect? Has he done ANYTHING right or principled?

I’ve written before that this presidency will be marked by it’s reliance on polling and domestic political focus. Not a focus on domestic policy or issues, but a focus on maintaining political dominance over Democrats. In other words, they’re not wielding power to advance some ideological agenda, they’re wielding power to continue wielding it.

The job of winning the next election has become the primary focus of the Administration and Congressional leadership. Look at everything with that as your decoder ring and suddenly EVERTHING the administration has done, every incomprehensible act (which may vary if you’re an R or a D) becomes abundantly clear. Everything, from budget deficits and spiraling spending, Medicare drug benefits, gay marriage, whatever.

Figure it out… they’re playing us and we keep paying them to do it. Both parties do it, but this Administration and leadership has taken it to a new level because there is NOTHING they won’t do because of ideology or because it’s simply, you know, wrong.

(ConfirmThem.com quote via The Volokh Conspiracy)