The Day after- Florida Newspaper reaction to Harriet Miers

Here is a sampling from Florida's Newspapers. We'll start with the Miami Herald whose editorial is titled JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE LEGAL ACUMEN, INDEPENDENT SPIRIT

Justices are asked to render judgment on issues that influence our national commerce, shape our values and beliefs and touch the most intimate details of our lives. They should be fair-minded, capable, intellectually honest and avowedly independent. These are the attributes that senators should ferret out with their questions, and they are the reasons the administration should be forthcoming in sharing data about the nominee. The burden is on the nominee to show the Senate that she's up to the challenge and that she can be faithful to the Constitution no matter who sits in the Oval Office.

The Tampa Tribune- Bush's Supreme Court Choice Is A Supreme Risk

Miers may turn out to be a great justice. All of the fretting and hand-wringing may have been a complete waste of time. But there is no clear reason for the president to have appointed her except that he knows her and trusts her.

Barring some untold revelation, it looks as though that will have to be good enough.

The Tribune in a Sunday editorial pushed Florida Supreme Court Justice and Cuban American Raoul Cantero III. They felt Bush owed his supporters a conservative justice.

The Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel- Supreme Court

So, Americans will be served as bland a nominee as possible so the administration can glide its choice through the Senate confirmation process, just as previous presidents have done. That's a flawed course of action, and a disappointing one following the success Bush found with John Roberts' selection as chief justice.

Miers is a lawyer whose job has been to advise George W. Bush in Texas and the White House. Concealing her views might undermine Miers' own credentials by making her look like a Bush political ally, not a sharp, independent thinker.

BOTTOM LINE: Stealth nominee indicates a flawed selection process forSupreme Court justices.

The Orlando Sentinel- A new nominee

Because Ms. Miers has never presided over a court, she lacks a paper trail that might shed light on her judicial philosophy. That is causing some consternation on both the left and the right -- especially for those interest groups that consider a nominee's position on abortion to be a litmus test.

Since Judge Robert Bork was rejected by the Senate in 1987 following a bitter fight, presidents have been reluctant to nominate judicial candidates with long paper trails. That's unfortunate, and almost certainly has excluded experienced candidates from being nominated for the Supreme Court.

and

Ms. Miers might not be the ideal Supreme Court nominee as far as some senators are concerned. But as the president's choice, she deserves fair and thorough hearings, and a timely vote based on her qualifications.

The Sentinel's sub-headline pretty much sums it up for this paper. Miers seems qualified, but it's unfortunate that politics precludes paper trails.

The Jacksonville Florida Times Union favors Miers- A reasonable pick

But she is a distinguished trial litigator, having been named by the National Law Journal as one of the nation's 100 most powerful attorneys, and she is among the nation's top 50 women lawyers, The Washington Post reports.

She is also known for a strong work ethic and being a trail blazer for women. For instance, she became the first female to head a large-scale Texas law firm and also became the first woman president of the state bar of Texas.

Integrity is a strong suit. As chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, she fired the executive director after it was revealed that a friend of the director won a consulting contract from the company operating the lottery, The Washington Post reported.

The FTU editorial ends with

Hearings promise to be thorough, but Miers should be able to handle the grilling. As Bush said of her in The Washington Post, "when it comes to a cross- examination, she can fillet better than Mrs. Paul."

Barring any unforeseen problems, Miers is a solid choice for the court.

The Tallahassee Democrat has no editorial on Miers today.

The St. Petersburg Times- Texas Trailblazer

Miers should not be disqualified merely because she comes from the White House and has not been a judge. The White House says 10 of the last 34 justices appointed had worked for the president who appointed them. While all of the current justices were previously judges, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist had never been a judge before joining the court.

Yet Miers has some work to do before the Senate votes on confirmation. She has neither the resume nor the track record that helped new Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. sail through the confirmation process. She would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a swing vote on a divided court poised to consider such issues as abortion, assisted suicide and campaign finance. That makes it even more imperative that Miers' philosophy is fully aired.

O'Connor remains on the court until her successor is confirmed, and the Senate Judiciary Committee should not rush its work. Miers may be well-known to the president, but she is a stranger to everyone else.

So far no major Florida paper hostile to the Harriet Miers nomination. A few papers are hedging their bets waiting for the confirmation hearings to play themselves out. That's a fair judgement at this point.

But you're probably all waiting for the Palm Beach Post. My favorite newspaper. Gag....Gag. The Post did have an editorial this morning. Its title- Miers devoted to Bush - and that isn't enough

Just because someone is qualified to be a George W. Bush loyalist doesn't mean that someone is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

For nearly 11 years, Harriet Miers has worked for George W. Bush. She was his lawyer in Texas. He made her chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission. After he became president, she took the first of three jobs in the White House and is now chief counsel -- President Bush's top lawyer. Along with political mugger Karl Rove, message massager Dan Bartlett and mouthpiece Scott McClellan, Ms. Miers is in that small circle of protectors whose main qualification is loyalty. That's a background for someone who wants to run the George W. Bush presidential library, not shape the law of the land.

So President Bush wants Americans to see a different person when they examine his choice to replace Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. He wants them to see the first female president of the Dallas and Texas bar associations. He wants them to see the first woman to run a major law firm in Texas. He wants them to see a person whom he praised for her obligatory "compassion" and "heart."

But here's another view of Ms. Miers: She doesn't have the experience to be a Supreme Court justice. Her recent history amounts to looking out for George W. Bush, and he doesn't surround himself with people who challenge him. Whatever considerable talents Ms. Miers may have had as a private lawyer for 20-plus years, since 2001 she has been looking out for the interest of only one client. She's never been a judge, and she has no background in federal law. Since she has written no opinions, there is no record of her judicial philosophy. Her public profile is lower than the president's approval ratings.

Articles note that Mr. Bush's description of her as a "pit bull in size 6 shoes" has lingered for years because so little is known about the unmarried woman whom friends describe as a workaholic. In May, she delivered the commencement address at Pepperdine Law School, which bills itself as having a "Christian emphasis," but groups that both support and oppose abortion rights were skeptical of her.

Other non-judges have gone straight to the high court, sometimes bringing the perspective of someone who has held elective office. Earl Warren had been governor of California. But Ms. Miers' one term on the Dallas City Council does not outweigh her lack of judicial experience. Ms. Miers seems to have led an inspirational, pioneering life. So have many people. She's the choice only because of her devotion to George W. Bush, which makes her an uninspiring and probably unqualified choice.

The Post has already passed judgment not surprisingly in my opinion. While I don't agree with all of thinking and rationale Randy Schultz and company use, I still don't like the Miers nomination. Blogosphere reaction hasn't changed much either, the conservatives are underwhelmed at minimum or some are angry. Michelle Malkin had this today.

115am EDT.Rose Garden press conference. NYPost reporter Deborah Orin asks for Bush's reaction to criticism from conservative female lawyers about Miers' lack of credentials. Bush: "I would ask them to watch the hearings of Harriet Miers...she's plenty bright...she was a pioneer in Texas...she's not a publicity hound, she just did her job...people can opine all they want." Did he mean to imply that stronger conservative female candidates such as Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones, and Priscilla Owen were "publicity hounds?" Also: Isn't oh-pining the job of a Supreme Court justice?

President Bush's statement doesn't inspire confidence.

Too little is known about Harriet Miers and she has no constitutional law background to fall back on. President Bush may know her, but that's not good enough.

Tuesday Special/Traffic Jam/Lunch- Jo's Cafe, Outside the Beltway and Basil's blog