PoliPundit has more on why Harriet Miers Must not be Confirmed. It's compelling argument.
Since her nomination was announced, I’ve said that Harriet Miers should be confirmed to the Supreme Court, despite her unexciting qualifications, because she’s a conservative. Information that has come out over the last week has caused me to believe she is not a conservative. So I’m changing my position: Harriet Miers should not be confirmed by the Senate.
On Roe v. Wade, I have no doubt that Miers is a rock-solid pro-lifer. If this were the only issue that mattered, then Miers would have my full support.
But there are any number of other issues before the Court, foremost among them the racial discrimination that goes on in the name of affirmative action. On these issues, Miers would at best be a squishy liberal like Justice O’Connor.
You don’t have to believe me, just ask her liberal-lawyer friend, Louise B. Raggio:“The abortion issue is a bad issue for me,” Raggio acknowledged, “but overall you look at the whole, and there are many issues I could agree with her on.”In 1998, Miers funded a lecture series in Ms. Raggio’s name at SMU. Most of the speakers have been ultra-liberal women.
Politically, Miers’ entire career seems to be one of going along to get along. From her donations to Al Gore and Lloyd Bentsen, to her non-membership in the Federalist Society, she seems eager to fit in with the liberal-lawyer crowd. Miers says she didn’t join the FedSoc “or other ‘politically charged’ groups because they ’seem to color your view one way or another.’” Doesn’t the liberal ABA count? In the White House, Miers argued for every judicial nomination to be vetted by the ABA.
Miers just doesn’t seem to understand who the friends and enemies of modern conservatism are. Such ignorance is dangerous.
Hat Tip to krempasky over at RedState.org: