for all you miers supporters

And I know some of you who read this blog every now and then are a risk to support her. Before you do check out what Paul Diegnan has to say. I haven't read most of them yet but the guy has dedicated several posts to her nomination and the myraid of problems with it. From what I've read he knows his stuff to. Nice to see a blogger take on the "heady" stuff and discuss the constitutionality angle of it.

In one post he makes a good point about how Bush's nomination of someone from within his own administration blurs the line between the branches of government and thus is on shaky ground with regard to separation of powers. While he makes a good case I'm not sure I agree with it. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of other reasons to choose from for opposing Miers. I don't at all support her nomination but I'm not sure I'd oppose it simply because she was working under Bush at the time of her nomination.

Wouldn't we expect a president to nominate someone he has great trust and confidence in? And wouldn't we also expect a president to surround himself with said people? On the latter we'd be rightfully concerned if he didn't. So it follows that several of his closest confidants who would agree with him on most matters are going to be associated with his administration in some way or another. The key here, I think, is the fact that she was actually employed in and had an official role in the executive branch. This is much different than someone who once worked with the president--Roberts is an example of a guy who worked for previous administrations but was not serving as such in an official capacity when he was nominated. But, of course, the same cannot be said for Miers. Therein lies a problem.

The more I think about it the more I think it's probably a good idea just to avoid this as a matter of precedent. Much like Washington's stepping down after two terms, it could be good practice for any president to avoid nominating those he's currently associated with. I guess before I make up my mind here I'd want to know a bit more of the history of nominations, such as when a similar scenario has arisen and what the results were for both the confirmation process and the judge's decisions on the Court. Something to research a little when I think about it and have the time I guess...

There are so many blog reviews that are worth reading. For a good start and plenty of links check out Malkin and reverse_vampyr.

UPDATE: A commenter at reverse_vampyr makes a very good comparison between Miers and Mike Brown, the former FEMA chief. Neither had any prior experience to qualify them for the job, neither had ever been in a position of such magnitude, both were cronies of Dubya before their selection, and on and on. And look how well Brown turned out. I don't expect Bush to ever really recover from the huge popularity slam Mike Brown and Co. dealt him. But, alas, he doesn't learn very well. The problem here is that the trouble will linger long after Bush has stopped torturing us with his endless cronyism and unfathomable stupidity. (Thankfully not too much longer since she's 60; if there's a silver lining here it's that she's old enough to have a shortened tenure.) O to have a conservative president...