Tom Goldstein, partner in one of the top appellate practices in DC and an astute observer of such matters, writes on the SCOTUSblog that Miers is likely to face serious opposition. In fact, he predicts she will be hammered in the confirmation hearings and be rejected:
The nomination obviously will be vigorously supported by groups created for the purpose of pressing the President's nominees, and vigorously opposed by groups on the other side. But within the conservative wing of the Republican party, there is thus far (very early in the process) only great disappointment, not enthusiasm. They would prefer Miers to be rejected in the hope - misguided, I think - that the President would then nominate, for example, Janice Rogers Brown. Moderate Republicans have no substantial incentive to support Miers, and the President seems to have somewhat less capital to invest here. On the Democratic side, there will be inevitable - perhaps knee-jerk - opposition. Nor does Miers have a built in "fan base" of people in Washington, in contrast to the people (Democratic and Republican) who knew and respected John Roberts. Even if Democrats aren't truly gravely concerned, they will see this as an opportunity to damage the President. The themes of the opposition will be cronyism and inexperience. Democratic questioning at the hearings will be an onslaught of questions about federal constitutional law that Miers in all likelihood won't want to, or won't be able to (because her jobs haven't called on her to study the issues), answer. I have no view on whether she should be confirmed (it's simply too early to say), but will go out on a limb and predict that she will be rejected by the Senate. In my view, Justice O'Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006.
Wow. And Tom Goldstein is a guy to be taken very seriously on such matters. He's not a partisan guy at all and is very highly connected in the DC legal community.
Mighten that be the plan?? Letting Miers "suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" and fail to be confirmed, but in doing so take out some of the sting and bite of the opposition, painted then as they will be as obstructionists, thence nominating an overt and much more archly conservative justice????
spyder-
I've been asked that question several times today, but it just makes no sense. Bush could have nominated any number of solidly conservative judges that his base would have loved but who were still quite confirmable. Michael McConnell brought even more intellectual gravitas than Roberts, had a solidly conservative track record in terms of his scholarly writings, and would have been impossible for the Democrats to stop. Alito, Garza, Clement or Jones would not bring the intellectual heft of a McConnell, but all are solidly conservative and none of them could have been stopped by the opposition. Bush created a difficult confirmation when he could have had a relatively easy one, and the opposition in this case is going to come primarily from the right, not the left. There are actually calls on the right for a Republican filibuster!
I've also heard it suggested that Bush is somehow trying to cater to the center, moderate Rupublicans for political reasons. I don't see how this nomination actually does that though.