John Fund Reverses His Position and Opposes Miers

Conservatives continue to line-up against the Miers nomination. Today, the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund joins them:

I have changed my mind about Harriet Miers. Last Thursday, I wrote in OpinionJournal’s Political Diary that “while skepticism of Ms. Miers is justified, the time is fast approaching when such expressions should be muted until the Senate hearings begin. At that point, Ms. Miers will finally be able to speak for herself.”

But that was before I interviewed more than a dozen of her friends and colleagues along with political players in Texas. I came away convinced that questions about Ms. Miers should be raised now–and loudly–because she has spent her entire life avoiding giving a clear picture of herself. “She is unrevealing to the point that it’s an obsession,” says one of her close colleagues at her law firm.

“Miers Remorse: Conservative Are Right To Be Skeptical” – Wall Street Journal


  • Denny Burk

    Dear John,

    That’s a great question. The din of objection from the conservative base is taking its toll, and I think it looks increasingly likely that she won’t be confirmed.

    However, President Bush puts a premium on loyalty, so it’s hard to imagine his withdrawing the nomination. She would have to step aside. I’m not sure that the President would do it.

    But your speculation is as good as mine. I don’t know what the President is thinking.

    Thanks for the comment.


  • Anonymous

    Be real. This is the counsel of the President of the United States. Do you imagine she has never had to handle tough cross questioning from people like Karl Rove? The senators should be easy for her.

  • John Rush

    I admit to hoping for the best and fearing the worst all in the same moment. If we sink her, could we be missing out on a great opportunity for a Supreme Court Justice that is truly American (Constitutional) in her thinking? Or will we get another globalist who seeks to undermine the country’s strength by looking to foreign law and making existential leaps of blind faith applied to legal theory?

    Is this a stroke of brilliance by an administration we do not understand? Or a serious misstep and a “taking the base for granted” by the President and his advisors.

    Or was it just one of those serious mistakes made by preoccupied people?

    Anway…if the trumpet doesn’t give a clear sound, who will assemble themselves for battle?


Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.