As more information becomes available about Harriet Miers, she seems to become more of an enigma. What does she stand for?
From the start, there was talk of her contributing to Al Gore's campaign many years ago. According to WorldNetDaily, her law firm's PAC also contributed $1000 to Hillary Clinton in 2000. If we are looking for consistency, we won't find it here.
Yet President Bush expects us to trust him when he says she is a good pick and claims that, "senators of both parties will find that Harriet Miers' talent, experience and judicial philosophy make her a superb choice to safeguard the constitutional liberties and equality of all Americans. Harriet Miers will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench." How can he be sure? Is his information more reliable than the information regarding WMDs in Iraq? Demanding for the American people to trust him on his nomination is too much for any elected official to ask.
More importantly, Bush is engaging in pure favoritism, selecting a nominee from his home state who worked for him personally, while turning a blind eye to much more highly qualified candidates.
It is the duty of the Senate to reject such nominations, in the spirit of Federalist #76 which reads, "the necessity of [requiring the Senate's] concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity."