This isn't right, either

I listened to this conference call [mp3] today between a bunch of the pro-Miers cheerleaders. Melman and Dobson and Colson were all in on it, as were others. The tone of the call was, as I said, cheerleading, but there were several comments that I found particularly disturbing.

One of the comments was to the effect that if Miers ruled in a way or interpreted the Constitution in a way with which Bush disagreed, that each would be deeply hurt at the betrayal by Miers. Now, I understand that Bush has nominated Miers because he knows her well enough to think that she won't go off the deep end like Kennedy and O'Connor have, but to have such a relationship with her that a ruling that Bush found disagreeable would be seen as a betrayal is very troublesome. It sounds as if Bush will be pulling the strings and Miers will be his puppet on the Court. That IS cronyism. Arguably, a president influencing supreme court decision-making that way, is an impeachable offense.

I may be reading into more than I should, but to imply that Miers will be voting "our way" because to do otherwise would wound her friendship with Bush is not something we should accept.

Moreover, what happens when Bush goes back to Crawford, Texas and Miers is still on the court? Is that when she will be free to rule how she wants to? If so, what does that tell us?

Still unqualified. Still a crony. Still Harriet Miers.