Advice and Consent

Regarding the discussions already swirling around the Harriet Meiers nomination, the simple question to be put to her is: "Why you, Ms. Meiers?"

The President appoints Justices to the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. That means the President says "This person should be on the Court," and the Senate asks: "Why?" The burden is not on the Senate to disqualify the nominee; the burden is on the President and the nominee, to prove that person is fit to sit on the highest court in the land, for life.

As Josh Marshall points out, the question "Was she ever a judge" is irrelevant. The more relevant issue, especially as GOP scandals start to come home to roost, is: what has she been doing for the last 5 years?

Presumably she's been involved in some fashion or another in everything the White House has been involved in over five years and intimately involved in every legal decision in 2005.

Which means she would presumably have to recuse herself from many cases the Court might hear in the next few years. But recusal, as we saw with the controversy over the travels of Scalia with Cheney, is a decision made by the individual justice. So if Justice Meiers decides not to recuse herself, how do the rest of us view the judicial opinions that concern "everything the White House has been involved in over five years," especially as more and more of those things wind up (very posssibly) in criminal court?

Seems to me that's one question, among many, to raise under the umbrella of: "Why Harriet Meiers?"

Because Bush likes her, is not enough reason to confirm.

ADDENDUM: Frank Rich, or, "As I was saying:"

So forget about all those details down in Texas that make your teeth hurt; don't bother to learn the difference between Trmpac and Armpac. Fasten your seat belt instead for the roller coaster of other revelations and possible indictments that's about to roar through the Beltway.

And how much of that can be expected to wind up on the doorstep of the SCOTUS? The one that, for the most part, put Bush into office the first time around, and now would have his own lawyer on the bench, to recuse herself as she saw fit?