Yes, another Miers post. Wait, wait, come back. Miers is only the occasion for a discussion of how to read the Constitution --that's the real debate between Miers' critics and her defenders. Its Oliver Wendell Holmes vs. Abraham Lincoln. So argues Ken Masugi, tantalizingly, with a promise of more to come. See also here (pop quiz: what requirements does the Constitution make for SCOTUS members?) and here, where Ken continues to defend the principle of self-government against the tyranny of the bar. Or as he puts it, the "wonkfest."
Here's Miers' written questionnaire (57 pp. pdf, be warned) submitted to the Judiciary Committee yesterday. Isn't it strange that while the Committee members claim they want to get to the heart of a nominee's "philosophy," only one "opinion" question is asked? Everything else is related to resumé and experience. Over at The Corner, Miers' response to the one question --about judicial activism-- is being dismissed as "boilerplate," and compared unfavorably with Roberts' answer. I have to concur in part and dissent in part. It's true Robert's answer is pithier, but Hubby & I think it's interesting that Miers highlights the question of "standing" (read carefully her discussion of what she learned clerking with Judge Estes). That telegraphs volumes about her approach to the bench: namely, that she understands the proper role of the Courts, and will stand astride the increasingly gauzy interpretation of standing SCOTUS has used to expand its power for 30 years. Very heartening.
UPDATE: All National Catholic Register is saying is, "Give Miers A Chance."
