The Mysterious Miers

Forget all the blithely certain analysis you’ve seen over the last two days. The most honest response to the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is, “Well, that’s something, isn’t it?” An attorney with no discernable paper trail, a friend (pejorative word: crony) of the president, a choice that neither pleases the right nor horrifies the left, Ms. Miers’ anonymity demands the Senate illuminate her abilities and her legal career.

That does not mean litmus tests; it means an explanation of what sort of justice Ms. Miers is likely to be. The lack of answers so far to this question was evident in the statements of both Maine senators Monday. The most fulsome praise from Sen. Olympia Snowe was, “I commend the president for embracing the spirit of diversity by nominating a woman to replace Justice O’Connor …” Sen. Susan Collins: “From talking with people who know Harriet Miers, I understand she has a remarkable work ethic.” That’s about as noncommittal as possible, although either could have tacked on, “Hallelujah, she’s not Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen.”

It is understandable that Maine’s two senators, like many others, do not have a definite opinion on Ms. Miers; the president, whose political capital has disappeared faster than the 2000 budget surplus, chose her apparently for that reason. He is looking for a win rather than a fight, and if there is no record beyond a demonstration of competence, which Ms. Miers seems to have, there’s nothing to fight about. The fact that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid praised the choice assures, absent revelations of an ethical lapse or some gross example of far-out judicial philosophy, that Ms. Miers will be confirmed.

The public is left with very little as a result. Yesterday at a press conference, the president said Ms. Miers not only was a strict constructionist but that “I know her well enough to be able to say she’s not going to change,” according to the president. “Twenty years from now … her philosophy won’t change.” There is something to be said for consistency, but the president’s thought that two decades of hearing Supreme Court cases would not alter in the least a person’s philosophy is revealing in itself.

Perhaps the Senate Judiciary Committee could begin its questions with that idea, before quizzing Ms. Miers on her time at the White House and looking for something defining in her career beyond loyalty to the president.