Miers Apointment; Political Apeasement?

Today Our President nominated his second Supreme Court Justice to the bench. Many speculatory comments have flown around the Blogosphere and all forms of media. It seems that the President, Kay B. Hutchison and Harry Reid are the only ones on Earth who even knew she existed before this morning!

Conservatives have a valid reason to be fearful of such obscure nominations. In 1987 Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork, the Senate Democrats would not consider him because he was, in their words, 'Too Conservative'. So Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg. But he soon fell out due to revelations that he was a former Marijuana smoker.

So Reagan's third attempt was a man considered to be a moderate, Anthony Kennedy to fill the seat occupied for 15 years by 80 year old Lewis F. Powell, another so called Moderate in the mold of Justice Stevens. In my estimation he was not much better than the Liberal activist Hugo Black, whom he replaced. America watched Kennedy become a champion of liberal activists world wide. " He's a moderate, not an activist"! Liberal hacks lamented. Yet we saw him line up on the side of the court that brought us rulings like the Kelo v. New London decision taking homes from American citizens and giving it to other wealthier citizens. He supports abortion when he gets a chance,dissenting in 2000's Stenberg v. Carhart case which sought to strike down laws criminalizing partial birth abortions. He supported Gay rights in the Romer v. Evans case and helped Liberals overturn Bowers v. Hardwick's sodomy ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case.

So if the great Conservative leader, Ronald Reagan could be duped, we have valid reasons to worry about a nominee such as Harriet Miers. Yes she has been a long time friend of George Bush, and she is respected by many Republican leaders. She replaced Alberto Gonzales as White House Counsel, and seems to be doing a great job. However, Harry Reid recently suggested that Bush nominate her, and that is in it's self reason to be skeptical. Information has surfaced about her support of Al Gore and the DNC as a former Democrat, and she has a non-existent judicial record.(she was never a Judge)

All faults aside, I am not ready to fully descent. I want to be as supportive of the President's choice as possible until I am given better reasons not to. She did take a stand in the Texas Bar Association to put the abortion issue on the Membership referendum. She also has been labeled an evangelical Christian. If these things are an indication of her moral compase, I stand by the nomination. We must, however remember, one stance does not a strict constructionalist make. Even Anthony Kennedy stood against abortion, before he stood for it!

All-in-all, this nomination seems to be a give-up choice and an apeasement tactic. By that I mean, Bush had the chance to thrust to the forefront the filibuster issue and win once and for all, the fight to change Senate Rule 22, while we still have the power to do so. Had he nominated someone such as (the female Clarence Thomas) Janice Rogers Brown, a subject of John McCain and his merry band of 14 Centrist's Filibuster-buster. He could have forced the Dumocrats to break their agreement and filibuster her nomination. Yet instead of standing and fighting the good fight, he chose to compromise, and go with a moderate. I just have to ask, after Reagan's Anthony Kennedy, and Bush 41's David Souter, can the Supreme Court afford another moderate? Can American Judeo Christian values survive if Bush is wrong? I guess only time will tell. Let's hope my skepticism is misplaced.