I've been turning this idea over and over in my head since the Miers nomination. Sometimes it makes sense. Sometimes I can feel the tin foil rubbing against my scalp. But so far it's the only way I can make the Miers nomination make sense.

I think Bush is bluffing.

If you've played any poker in your life you know that if you only bet on big hands, eventually every time you bet everybody folds.

From all of the information I have been able to discover about Miers, nominating her makes no sense whatsoever. There are so many other better qualified individuals available.

Conservative critics of the nomination are angered in part because they saw this nomination as an opportunity to force a public debate on the role of the judiciary as one of three co-equal branches of government. They believed nominating a known strong judicial conservative was the key to having that debate. But from what I have read since the Miers nomination it seems the nature and future direction of the court is being vigorously debated. If Bush had nominated Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown, we would have had a raucous partisan battle that would come down to a partisan committee vote and a partisan Senate vote with the votes of the Republican half of the Gang of 14 deciding the issue.

Now, instead of a partisan battle, we are debating and discussing what a Justice should be and what the court should be.

So the bluff has kept the players at the table, playing the game Bush and his conservative critics want to play. So what is the bluff?

The judicial confirmation process has been a farce for years. From the filibusters, to Ads containing outright lies about Justice Roberts, to the New York Times trying to investigate the Roberts' family adoption records. None of which has anything do with the law or an individual's fitness to be a judge. The nomination of Miers will force the Judicial Committee and the Senate to focus on issues of law and judicial qualification.

And if the President loses this hand - and loses with Republicans voting no - what does it mean?

It means that stakes are raised in the next hand - and there are fewer wild cards for the left to play.

President Bush can point to the rejected nomination of Miers and say the system works when you play it straight up. He can nominate Luttig, Brown or Owens and challenge the left to knock them down based on their judicial qualifications and he has a free hand to raise on every play they make.

There is probably a pretty good chance given the reliability of the Republican votes in the Gang of 14, that whoever Bush nominated for this seat was going to be rejected. Particularly if he had nominated one of the strict constructionists from everybody's short list. So he has his loyal friend and advisor take one for the team. Then he can come back with the strong nominee conservatives want.

President Bush and his team are not generally as politically inept and tone deaf as they have appeared to be regarding this nomination. On its face this is a bigger political mistake then one would expect. The only way it makes any sense is if they are doing it on purpose. The only real danger is if the Senate calls his bluff and confirms Miers. Then all we have is the hope that Bush is holding the cards he hints he is.

By the way, the new non-stick tinfoil is really more comfortable than the old stuff.

Technorati Tags: harriet miers, Supreme Court

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 08:15 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment