The Daily Bubble

So far, I'm not impressed with the choice of Harriet Miers. She has never been a judge, has worked only in political capacities for most of her career, seems much less qualifed than Judge Roberts. Is she the best we can do? I'll make up my mind during the hearings. To get a sense of what others think, see the reactions below.

Update: I moved all the reactions inside. Last updated: 10/3/05 at 4:10 PM.

Reactions

Is Harriet Miers gay? It doesn't matter to a social liberal like me, but knowing that the possibility will irk social conservatives is deeply satisfying. I love when the anti-gay party has to swallow a switch-hitter for political gain.

She doesn't have any experience in constitutional law.

Baseball Crank does a round-up on the woman that called George Bush the "most brilliant man I've ever met". He's less than impressed and points to a lot of other unhappy conservative pundits.

Right Wing News: "To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection."

Rich Lowry of the National Review: "TAKE IT BACK: After the Roberts pick conservatives swooned and said Bush doesn't care about “diversity”; it's only high qualifications that matter to this bold, let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may leader, etc., etc. Don't we have to take all that back now?"

Andrew Sullivan points out the deep unease on the right here and here.

Wonkette thinks she might swing both ways - but not that way.

The Volokh Conspiracy: "I'm please that Miers is (a) not from an elite law school; (b) not a federal judge; and (c) spent the vast majority of her career outside the beltway. All good things to bring new perspectives to the Court, and, in the case of (b), break a silly tradition [that Justices MUST be from the federal bench] that has evolved."

Read the comments on ConfirmThem.com. It was supposed to be the judicial pick rubber stamp club.

Social conservatives must be deeply concerned that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urged Bush to pick Miers.

Ankle Biting Pundits: "Politically it's not good because it just opens the President up to charges of "cronyism"."

Powerline: "Bush chose a nominee who makes little sense on either substantive or political grounds: a second or third tier candidate whose choice will be, I think, slight political minus for the President because of her perceived lack of qualifications. I really don't get it."

David Frum: "The Miers nomination, though, is an unforced error."

There is a lot of slightly more hopeful commentary over at Bench Memos.

The Anchoress thinks she's a decoy: "My own prediction: She may not make it to the Supreme Court. Bush may not even intend for her to get there. She may be, rather than the “misdirection,” many expected, an out-and-out decoy, floated to allow both the liberals and the conservatives to blast her out of the water so that Bush can then put up another candidate that both left and right - after having behaved very badly over Miers - will not dare to behave badly over, again."

Social Conservative Professor Bainbridge lists his top seven reasons he's "appalled".

Hugh Hewitt trusts Bush and therefore believes Miers is a "solid, B+ pick".

Here's the GOP' list of endorsements. Harry Reid is #3.

Mier's wrote this in a report to the American Bar Association: "Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. ... recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court." Social conservatives will love that nugget. [via Andrew Sullivan]

The Moderate Voice has a great, all-encompassing round-up.

A lot of Democrats say they genuinely like her. WTF? Bush nominates someone that the Democrats like and the far right loathes. Maybe this is some kind of elaborate prank?