[grey_whiskers]

I wrote a vanity on this topic last night.

Do you agree with my suspicion that this nomination is a gambit by Bush? Do you think the Dems are taking the bait?

[DallasMike]

That was an excellent post -- you write very well.

I agree fully with your contention that Bush is playing poker with Miers. I'm just not quite sure what he's trying to accomplish with this game. Bush plays poker to win and he's almost always the one left holding the cards at the end of the game.

[Dat Mon]

Good vanity.

Also consider that this could be a gambit within a gambit.

The dems could be setting a trap for the WH and republicans by setting up a future battering ram of precedent.

What precedent is established long term by appointing Meirs, a close personal confidant and WH lawyer, to the SCOTUS, and does this relate to future possible conflicts of interest in SCOTUS cases regarding religion, and WOT policies that Miers was involved in during her stint in the WH.

There are many issues and questions here. Meirs may be judged by the dems to be a weak social conservative quasi-moderate in the mold of O'Connor, and thus not worth expending capital in attacking.

Maybe the dems will use these hearings to try to get at Miers policy decisions within the WH, laying an attack on Bush indirectly, and setting the stage for later conflict of interest charges on those same issues in future SCOTUS cases, should Miers not recuse herself. Executive privilege is not a savior...because the very mention evokes memories of Nixon...and the MSM would broadcast the term at every opportunity.

She may pass through this hearing with her qualifications and personal philosophy largely untouched by the dems, as it leaves uncertainty within the conservative base which is in the long term interest of the dems.