What's Roe Got to Do With It?

Contrary to what’s being said on both the left and right about Bush’s nomination of Miers (and although I despise agreeing with him), I sincerely believe him when he said that she is "the best person I could find" to replace O'Connor on the court. When taking into consideration what I think are his motives, he could not have found a more qualified individual.

The mistake that many have made is in thinking that his assessment of her “qualifications” represent any perception Bush may have of her judicial philosophy, or any interest Bush may have in establishing a court that aligns with the ideologies of the GOP or the religious right. His interest is -- and has always been -- to use his power so that he and those within his “family” can profit financially from his policies. Unlike Nixon’s abuses of power (which were for political reasons) or Clinton’s perjury (which was to conceal personal behavior) Bush’s crimes most resemble those of a mob boss: racketeering, extortion, blackmail, torture, and fostering a climate where others kill for him. They have no interest in forging a conservative legacy, but are simply in it to make as much money as possible and then get out before the roof caves in. It’s a “bustout” on a grand scale and Miers is his wartime consigliere.

While the profits from no-bid contracts stretching from Iraq to New Orleans will provide wealth for years to come, the presence of Miers as the critical “swing vote” position on the court will ensure that (even if charged and convicted by lower courts) he and his cohorts will not be held responsible for their actions.

Consider a few details from her history:
1993 - During his first gubernatorial campaign, Miers was retained to conduct a background check on Bush and clean up any embarrassing details regarding his “service” in the National Guard.
1998 - When gearing up for a White House run, Bush called upon Meirs was once again (this time in her role as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission) to settle what could have become troubling revelations about preferential treatment he may have received in his Guard appointment. (See In examining Miers's tenure with Texas Lottery Commission, NY Times left out key link to Bush campaign.)
2000 - When Bush & Cheney were charged with violating the 12th amendment to the Constutition (prohibiting candidates on the same ticket from residing in the same state), it was Miers who filed the brief in the case.
2001 - The revelation that it was Miers who briefed Bush on the August 6, 2001 memo detailing bin-Laden’s determination to strike the U.S. using hijacked planes is an indication of the degree of her insider status. Unfortunately, the specifics of this meeting may already be lost under the protection of attorney-client privelege.
2005 - Miers vetted (perhaps even selected) John Roberts in his nomination to the court. In this, Miers might even represent two votes, since she may well have information about Roberts that could be used to dissuade him from possibly voting against Bush.

What is equally important are the sources of her current endorsments. Respected conservatives in the Senate? No, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales…capos who could very well find themselves in the docket alongside Dubya.

The most important question to be asked of Miers during the confirmation process is not one relating to abortion, gay marriage, or any of the other hot button issues. It is “if the case of The United States of America vs. George W. Bush came before the Supreme Court, would you recuse yourself?”

Any response but an unequivocal "yes" must result in a vote of disapproval.