Changed my mind

about Harriet Miers. Previously, I'd said that I had settled down into the "oh, go ahead and have a confirmation hearing" mode. After further reflection, I think it would be best if she withdrew.

One of my concerns previously was that it would make a subsequent nomination more difficult should she drop out. But considering the circus that this has become, I now think it would be far more damaging to let the hearings go on.

You've all probably seen the stereotypical movies when some underdog gets to a high position in sports or business (or some other endeavor), bypassing the establishment? Usually the hero shoots the winning goal or winds up running the corporation even though they had little more going for them than a little moxie or maybe some unrefined talent. This kind of "feel good" situation is fun for a movie script (hell, who wouldn't like to be Brewster or Annie?) but totally inappropriate for a SCOTUS pick. And no matter how wonderful President Bush's view of Miers is, that's the way she looks to many of us.

75 or 150 years ago, constitutional law was surely less complicated than it is now. Fewer laws, fewer precedents. It was probably OK to pick someone with little or no constitutional law experience back then. Today, we need someone who is totally prepared to perform on their first day of work. SCOTUS is not a place where we should be setting up an OJT program.

Update: N Z Bear is tracking the thumb orientation (up or down) of the blogosphere. So, I oppose the Miers nomination. (His site is scanning for certain phrases, see here for details).