Alito It Is

Samuel Alito Jr. is Bush's pick to replace O'Connor on the Court. This will almost certainly spark a Democratic reaction and great political conflict in the U.S. Senate. Democrats will likely draw a line in the sand and use whatever tools they can to defeat Alito. Both sides are jockeying to frame Alito in the public's mind. Democrats are and will seek to paint him as a "far right wing, extreme knuckle dragging conservative" and Republicans will seek to present him as a reasonable Conservative who simply has a philosophy of judicial restraint.

Here is a U.S. News article on Alito from earlier in the year...


"Nicknamed "Scalito" for views resembling those of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito Jr. is a favorite son of the political right. Appointed in 1990 by George H.W. Bush to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito has earned a reputation for intellectual rigor and polite but frequent dissent in a court that has been historically liberal. His mettle, as well as a personable demeanor and ties to former Republican administrations, has long had observers buzzing about his potential rise to the high court. "Sam Alito is in my mind the strongest candidate on the list," says Pepperdine law Prof. Douglas Kmiec. "I know them all . . . but I think Sam is a standout because he's a judge's judge. He approaches cases with impartiality and open-mindedness."

A New Jersey native, the 55-year-old Alito received a bachelor's degree from Princeton and graduated from Yale Law School. He worked in the solicitor general's office during the Reagan administration and was a U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey when George H.W. Bush nominated him to the Third Circuit. His 15 years on the bench have been marked by strong conservatism on a case-by-case basis that avoids sweeping opinions on constitutionality.
In 1997, Alito authored the majority opinion upholding a city's right to stage a holiday display that included a Nativity scene and a menorah because the city also included secular symbols and a banner emphasizing the importance of diversity. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito was the sole dissenter on the Third Circuit, which struck a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to consult their husbands. He argued that many of the potential reasons for an abortion, such as "economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition . . . may be obviated by discussion prior to abortion." The case went on to the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision 6 to 3.

Alito's conservative stripes are equally evident in criminal law. Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, describes him as "an activist conservatist judge" who is tough on crime and narrowly construes prisoners' and criminals' rights. "He's very prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his conservatism, which is, I think, as much a Rehnquist as a Scalia trait," Lustberg says.

Some observers say that Alito cannot be easily pigeon-holed. In Saxe v. State College Area School District, Alito, writing for the panel, argued that the school does not have the right to punish students for vulgar language or harassment when it doesn't disrupt the school day. "Sam struck that down as a violation of free speech," Kmiec says. "That's not a conservative outcome."
Off the bench, friends and colleagues describe Alito as quiet and self-effacing with a wry sense of humor. He is a voracious reader with a particular love for biographies and history. With his wife, Martha, he has a son in college and a daughter in high school. "He's mild mannered and generous and family oriented," Lustberg says. "I don't agree with him on many issues, but I have the utmost respect for him. No one can question his intelligence or integrity."

One more...Luttig in Play?

Here is more speculation and a pitch for Luttig by Hugh Hewitt....


"Damn the Torpedoes: A Pitch for Justice Luttig.
October 28, 2005 12:25 PM PST

The encouraging news about the new short list indicates that the president is willing to run the opinions gauntlet, a preview of which we received in the attention paid my "hapless toad" case during the Roberts' hearings. Chief Justice Roberts only had a couple of years worth of opinions, though, so the distortion level we saw was significantly less than what we witnessed in September. I have long thought that this was the single biggest obstacle to a set of candidates moving to the top. Opinions are often difficult to explain to laymen, easily distorted by opponents, and mangled --intentionally or otherwise-- by media.
Both Judges Alito and Luttig (and others) have a large set of drawers full of opinions they issued, and these will all be on the table if either man is nominated. The advantage of a McConnell over a Luttig was simply skipping this parsing, but the advantage of Luttig over all others really is a sort of jovial toughness combined with deep familiarity with D.C. thrust and parry.
There is also the factor of age --51-- which would promote Judge Luttig over most others, his long and close friendship with the new Chief Justice --which I think would be a significant advantage short and long term.
But it is really temperment that gives Luttig a special attraction. Both the Chief Justice and Judge Luttig are proteges of former White House Counsel Fred Fielding, whom I have never seen perplexed or perturbed, even during his time on the 9/11 Commission when things were getting dicey with his fellow commissioners. Fielding's aplomb has been absorbed by both the Chief Justice and Judge Luttig. It is a marvelous quality in a witness having to listen to Patrick Leahy, Joe Biden etc go on for hours and hours.
The fact that Luttig has been around the D.C. wars for literally decades has two other significant advanatges.
First, he knows walking in what is coming and he will not flinch. In fact, he will smile throughout. Nothing will surprise him.
Second, he has friends on the other side of the aisle --good friends, and help unlooked for could arrive early and perhaps even often in the process.
The Farragut Option. If the president introduces Judge Luttig as the nominee, there will be no doubt about getting the band back together."

More Speculation

More scuttlebut...I am not sure how much stock to put in any of this speculation but it is interesting to consider the possibilities. This again from over at Confirm Them...

"Okay, I was already rejoicing at the rampant rumors that Alito would be the choice. As I’ve posted repeatedly, he has long been my first choice. I think he is terrific. But as most of you have seen this week, my first choice for the current circumstances is Chris Cox, for reasons amply explained in other posts and on NRO. Now I see a James Pinkerton column on the wire, which tracks what John Fund has said on MSNBC. I hope that if the Alito rumors aren’t right (and it would be great if they ARE right), then the reason they aren’t right is because these other rumors a la Pinkerton are correct isntead. Either way, we win! Here’s the key passage from Pinkerton:But if Bush wants to keep his base happy and get his nominee on the court, he does have one option. The hot rumor in D.C. is that he is eyeing Christopher Cox, a former Republican congressmen with impeccable conservative credentials, who in August became chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.Cox has the brainpower for the job, and he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate just a few months ago. Indeed, he is an obvious choice for Bush, except for one thing: He’s a white male. But the conservative movement has never worried much about diversity. That’s a preoccupation of the liberal movement, and it has never been for Bush, nor will it ever be."

Forza Italia...Alito?

Here is the latest rumor over at Confirm Them...


"Multiple sources are telling RedState that Samuel A. Alito, Jr. of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will be named by the President at the next associate justice of the United States Supreme Court as early as Monday.
“The situation is still in flux,” says one source, “but not very much.” Says another, “The White House Counsel’s Office is not doing too good at keeping this a secret.”
Still another source says, “Luttig and Alito were the fall backs to Miers. They have both been vetted. Alito seems more palatable. There is no need to drag this out, he’s been vetted a million times.”
And yet another source tells me that he is convinced Alito is the nominee barring some last minute unforeseen issue. All signs are pointing to Judge Alito right now. Things could change, but as the weekend draws closer it seems more and more likely that Judge Alito will be the nominee and conservatives will have a fight on their hands in the Senate — a very winnable fight."

A Plea for Cox

One writer over at Confirm Them is making a plea for Chris Cox. I don't have firm reasons, but I doubt he will be Bush's pick...An interesting take and a compelling argument.

"As big a fan as I am of Alito, Batchelder and Sykes — all three of whom, along with a few others, would receive my enthusiastic support — I repeat here my arguments for Chris Cox as the nominee. 1) He is brilliant. 2) He is a wonderfully principled conservative. 3) He has a tremendous resume at Harvard Law, as a federal appeals court clerk, running a business translating Russian newspapers, serving in a solid law firm doing important work, serving in Reagan’s counsel’s office vetting judicial nominees, serving 17 years in Congress including either 10 or 12 in leadership, chairing important committees that reached bipartisan consensus on crucial matters, thinking deeply and writing cogently on constitutional issues while in Congress, and now SEC chairman. 4) He just was confirmed unanimously (I believe) to the SEC, with bipartisan praise, so he’s tough to attack politically. 5) He enjoys excellent relationships across the aisle because, even though he is so conservative, he is so consistently fair, courteous, etc. 6) Republicans like him enough that if Dems DID try to filibuster him, there is NO QUESTION the GOP would invoke the constitutional option to pass him, and in the process obviously kill the filibuster against judges for good. 7) Bush and Cheney both like and respect him. If he gets confirmed,he embarrasses Barbara Boxer for her blue slip against his Ninth Circuit nomination. 9) He is so telegenic, so articulate, so quick on his feet, so obviously brilliant and upstanding and dignified — but still so youthful in terms of energy level, etc., making him dynamic — that the Dems won’t be able to lay a hand on him during hearings, as he explains our jurisprudential philosophy even more effectively than Roberts does. I.e, he is the perfect person to make this a “teaching moment” for the country and help bring the general public even more firmly on our side. 10) He’s only 53, and appears to be in great shape, so he should be able to serve for 25 years.Okay, I could add other reasons, but 10 is a nice, round number. Let me just add a personal note, that I have worked with him personally in a small group when I was an aide to Bob Livingston, and so I have seen first-hand, in a way most staffers of other members don’t, all his brilliance and other solid personal characteristics.COX FOR SCOTUS!"

We were Against Her Before We Were For Her

Here is an interesting piece from Carol Platt Liebau from over at Confirm Them...

"At this point, it’s extremely important to point out that the discontent over the Miers nomination was bipartisan, at the very least — because Barbara Boxer has just been stating (on Fox radio news) that she “had no problem” with Harriet Miers.
Ha. Check out this quote from the San Francisco Chronicle:
Barbara Boxer: “Here’s what I know about Harriet Miers,” Boxer said. “I know that she’s a crony of the president. I know she thinks he’s the most brilliant man she’s ever met. I know that she was head of the search committee and wound up being the nominee, and I know that she is personally anti-choice. Those are things I know.”
And Russ Feingold said (as reported here), “The president has chosen someone here about whom objectivity and independence is a very real question. He’s selling this to the American people, saying, ‘This is a person I know real well. You should trust me and trust her.’ This is one of the president’s closest confidantes.”
As for Patrick Leahy, check this out: “Leahy Has Concerns About Harriet Miers.” In it, he said, “What I do know is that she has a reputation for being loyal to this president, whom she has a long history of serving as a close adviser and in working to advance his objectives.” That’s not a compliment, coming from him — and don’t forget he was one of the first to note that some had characterized Ms. Miers initial questionnaire as “insulting”.
Hillary Clinton’s reaction to the Miers nomination was described as “cool.”
And this piece notes that Teddy Kennedy may have been working to defeat the nomination behind the scenes.
And, of course, MoveOn.org was digging for dirt.
The long and short of it is that no Democrat had pledged support for Ms. Miers, and Republicans were unhappy. Seems to me that few of them can fault the President for listening to some of his conservative constituents when they themselves were unwilling to press for Ms. Miers to get a hearing.
Let’s not permit the liberals to start rewriting history."

Miers Withdraws

Today, Miers has decided to call it quits...obvious speculation is that she was asked by Bush to resign under pressure from the conservative wing of the party. True, Bush was under pressure from conservatives, but that alone did not change things in my opinion. Conservative opposition was important, but so was the emerging picture of Democrats ready to torpedo her nomination in order to deal Bush a political blow. With support from Capitol Hill waning it became increasingly clear that Miers would not make it.

My guess is that she likely saw the writing on the wall and the White House was willing to be bailed out on this one. If I were Miers and I knew that Conservative Republican senators had no confidence in me or my nomination and Democratic senators would be seeking to sink my nomination to deal Bush a political setback, and both had begin to coalece around accusations about my competance, I would certainly begin to have second thoughts about going through the process. Furthermore, in this context the hearings began to look more and more like the potential for both sides to engage in a game of human pinata. Who would seek to put themselves through this? Thus, I will not immediately subscribe to the cynical view that she was asked to resign by Bush. However, I also believe the White House was more than willing for her to step aside given the forboding future ahead. Below is the AP story, complete with "objective" speculation as to what really happened.

Don't let the story fool you, Democratic senators, the very ones quoted in the story were having doubts and were ready to pounce on Miers...


"WASHINGTON - Under withering attack from conservatives,

President Bush abandoned his push to put loyalist Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court and promised a quick replacement Thursday. Democrats accused him of bowing to the "radical right wing of the Republican Party."

The White House said Miers had withdrawn because of senators' demands to see internal documents related to her role as counsel to the president. But politics played a larger role: Bush's conservative backers had doubts about her ideological purity, and Democrats had little incentive to help the nominee or the embattled GOP president.
"Let's move on," said Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi. "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?"....

....Bush blamed the Senate for her demise.
"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," the president said shortly before leaving for Florida to assess hurricane damage.
There were few regrets on Capitol Hill, from either party. Republicans control 55 of the Senate's 100 seats, but several GOP lawmakers were wavering on Miers amid intense lobbying from conservative interest groups.
Republicans and Democrats alike questioned her qualifications — Miers had never served as a judge — and Bush faced charges of cronyism for tapping his former personal lawyer for the highest court in the land.
Frist spoke with White House chief of staff Andy Card Wednesday night and offered a "frank assessment of the situation," Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson said. Coincidentally or not, Miers told Bush of her plans the same night.
"Somebody probably pulled her aside and said, 'Harriet, it's going to be a terrible experience and why go through with it, because they've already made up their minds,'" said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who blasted conservative groups for undermining the nominee. Other lawmakers welcomed the move.

Read the rest of the AP story....

Anti is Not Just Your Uncle's Wife...

Dennis Prager has an interesting column this week and I thought I would bring your attention to it...

The difficulty of intellectually engaging the Left
By Dennis Prager

One of the more appealing aspects about being on the Left is that you do not necessarily have to engage your opponents in debates over the truth or falsehood of their positions. You can simply dismiss your opponent as "anti."

Anti-worker: It all began with Marxism. If you opposed communism or socialism, you were not merely anti-communist or anti-socialist, you were anti-worker. This way of dismissing opponents of leftist ideas is now the norm. Anyone, including a Democrat, who raises objections to union control of state and local politics is labeled anti-worker: "anti-teacher," "anti-firefighter," "anti-nurse," etc. This is how the unions are fighting California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attempts to rein in unauthorized union spending of members' dues to advance leftist political goals. He is depicted as an enemy of all these groups.

Anti-education: Those who object to the monopoly that teachers' unions have on public education and to their politicization of the school curricula are labeled "anti-education." Of course, the irony is that if you love education, you must oppose the teachers' unions.

Anti-intellectual: If you object to the dwindling academic standards at universities, or to the lack of diversity in ideas there, you are dismissed as "anti-intellectual." Given the universities' speech codes, the intellectually stifling Political Correctness that pervades academia, and the emotionalism that characterizes most leftist views on campus (American "imperialism," Israeli "apartheid," "war for oil" are emotional outbursts, not serious positions), if any side seems to express anti-intellectualism, it would be the Left....


...Anti-peace: The very fact that anti-war and "peace" activists have labeled themselves "pro-peace" and "anti-war" renders their opponents vulnerable to charges of opposing peace and even loving war. Again, no intellectual argument is needed. According to much left-wing rhetoric, those who support the war in Iraq do not love peace. Of course, there was no peace in Iraq prior to the American deposing of Saddam Hussein, and there would be far more bloodshed if America now left Iraq. But it is far harder to engage those arguments than to label those who make them "anti-peace."

Read the rest...

The Debate Goes On...

One interesting analysis of the Miers nomination comes from Hugh Hewitt who has articulated these general themes on his radio show.

He argues that…
1. Bush and his team knew they did not have the votes in the Senate to defend the nomination of a known conservative. The Gang of seven (Snowe, Collins, Chafee, De Wine, Warner, McCain, and Graham; and perhaps even Specter) were not solid votes to override a Democratic filibuster. While they may have a 51 vote majority to confirm a conservative, they did not have a 60 majority to override the filibuster, nor a 51 vote majority to institute a rule change eliminating the filibuster.
2. Thus the timing is not right to have WWIII over the principle of whether or not judicial filibusters are Constitutional, and over what a legitimate judicial philosophy regarding Constitutional interpretation is. Because of weak Republicans, Bush did not have the numbers to have an all out war over the judicial nominee thus he went with a “stealth conservative” pick that is confounding both sides of the spectrum as to her true philosophy. (Bush may have miscalculated the depth of conservative anger over her however).
3. Bush may be banking on getting another nominee next summer (perhaps a big if…). If so senators facing election in November will be less inclined to vote against their Republican brethren when they know they will be facing Republican voters a mere month or two later. This may be the time to push for the Conservative nominee that we all want. Is it better to hold your fire now and save it for all out war later?
4. In the mean time Bush decided to go with someone he knows very well and “anti-Souter” in his mind since his father barely knew Souter. While she was not the best choice He knew “in his heart” that she would uphold an original intent standard even while no one else from the outside can be sure.
5. Hewitt also makes the observation that those justices that have not strayed to the left came directly out of working in partisan administrations (Rehnquist, Scailia, Thomas) and those that have strayed have come from the bench or have not been in directly partisan offices in a Presidential administration (O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter). He argues, Miers partisan credentials may provide the glue for her judicial philosophy.

I am not necessarily subscribing Hewitt’s views or to Bush’s potential strategy here, and it does include a lot of “ifs.” But, Hewitt’s analysis is the most novel I have heard and brings in the political constraints that may be influencing Bush’s thinking. The question of whether or not Bush would prevail in a war with the Dems now, and whether Republicans will be better positioned at a later date for all out war is a fair question. Also what is the best predictor of a justice who will not stray in their philosophy is a fair question. I am not sure I know the answer to that one.

Miers under attack...

Some samplings from the bristling attacks in the political cartoon world...

Controversy Ensues...

DAVID FRUM ON WHY MIERS SHOULD NOT BE THE CHOSEN ONE...
"OCT. 5, 2005: RULE OF REASON
The president was visibly angry at his press conference yesterday. Nobody likes criticism, especially when it's justified. But was he convincing? He sure did not convince me. The closest thing he offered to a defense - praise for his nominee for hailing from outside the "judicial monastery" - entirely misses the point. Senator John Cornyn elaborates on this defense in the Wall Street Journal this morning, and makes it clearer than ever what is wrong with it:
"[S]ome have criticized the president because he did not select an Ivy-League-credentialed federal appeals court judge for the open seat."

The problem with Harriet Miers is not that she lacks formal credentials, although she does lack them. Had the president chosen former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, or Securities and Exchange Commission chair Christpher Cox, or Interior Department secretary Gail Norton, nobody would complain that they were not federal appeals court judges.

Or had the president named Senator Jon Kyl (LLB, University of Arizona) or Senator Mitch McConnell (LLB, University of Kentucky) or Edith Jones Clement (LLB, Tulane), nobody would be carping at the absence of an Ivy League law degree.

Those who object to the Miers nomination do not object to her lack of credentials. THey object to her lack of what the credentials represent: some indication of outstanding ability.
The objection to Miers is not that she is not experienced enough or not expensively enough educated for the job. It is that she is not good enough for the job.
(See more on this in my article in the next print NR.)

And she will remain not good enough even if she votes the right way on the court, or anyway starts out voting the right way. A Supreme Court justice is more than just a vote. A justice is also a voice.

The president's defense of Miers in many ways amplified the problem. His case for her boils down to: "Because I say so" and "She really is a nice person."

But "because I say so" is not an argument. It is an assertion of pure authority. And have not the great conservative legal minds of the past three decades warned again and again that the courts have gone wrong precisely because they have relied too much on authority and too little on argument?

"She really is a nice person" likewise is a statement grounded on feeling rather than thought. And don't conservatives object to legal liberalism precisely because it is based on sloppy emotion rather than disciplined thought?

Legal conservatism is a powerful and compelling school of thought. The Scalias and the Thomases and the Rehnquists have changed the law not by forcing their positions on the country by brute vote-counting, but by persuasion. That's why, to pick out just one example, that Bush v Gore was decided by a 7-2 majority and not lost 3 to 6.

This president has never believed much in persuasion. He believes that the president should declare and that the country should then follow. But judges cannot and should not do that. He should have chosen a justice who could lead by power of intellect, and not because she possesses 1/9 of the votes on the supreme judicial body

It has been conservatives who have been most up in arms about the Miers nomination - and can I single out here the broadcaster Laura Ingraham, who has been first and most forceful with this story? Not for a second has she wavered under the pressures that have been deployed against her and the others who have joined this fight.

But the Miers nomination is a disservice, not just to conservatives, but the whole country.
All Americans are entitled to know that those judges who exercise the power of judicial review have thought hard and deeply about the immense power entrusted to them. If the courts were just about getting the votes, then the preisdent should have chosen Dennis Hastert for the Supreme Court. But to change American law, it's not enough to win the vote count. You have to win the argument. And does anybody believe Harriet Miers can win an argument against Stephen Breyer?

Yesterday's White House talking point was that Miers "reflects the president's judicial philosophy." OK. But can she articulate it? Defend it? And persuade others of it - not just her colleagues, but the generations to come who will read her decisions and accept them ... or scorn them. That's the way this president should have thought about this choice. And that's the way the Senators called on to consent to the choice should be thinking about it now.
PS"




HUGH HEWITT ON MIERS AND FRUM
"October 5, 2005 07:39 AM PST
The sort of conservative critique of Harriet Miers that ought to embarass all conservatives is a personal attack that makes sweeping assertions without a detailed factual basis, and which also makes claims that can not be rebutted by resort to evidence, present or future. It is the sort of critique that David Frum makes this morning. The ordianrily persuasive and careful Frum doubles down (triples down?) on his first blast at Miers, and does so in such a fashion as to raise the question of whether there is some personal ax being ground fine here. Frum served 13 months in the Bush White House as a speechwriter, a time when Harriet Miers was Staff Secretary, so they know each other -- a little or a lot, I don't know. Given what follows in this column, you have to wonder what sort of relationship they had.

Here's the key paragraphs of the Frum blog from this morning:
Those who object to the Miers nomination do not object to her lack of credentials. They object to her lack of what the credentials represent: some indication of outstanding ability.
The objection to Miers is not that she is not experienced enough or not expensively enough educated for the job. It is that she is not good enough for the job.
(See more on this in my article in the next print NR.)
And she will remain not good enough even if she votes the right way on the court, or anyway starts out voting the right way. A Supreme Court justice is more than just a vote. A justice is also a voice.

Not only is Frum inaccurately reporting the harshest criticism made of Miers --though not from him-- he is turning his face from all contrary evidence already on the table and, incredibly, puts forward the anti-intellectual argument that nothing she does or writes in the future will be enough to ever prove him wrong."


JAMES LILEKS ON MIERS
"The wailing! The gnashing! The rending of garments! If the conservative reaction to Harriet Miers is any indication, Bush has no chance of winning a third term. The decision to appoint a relative unknown – or, given her proximity to the Bush inner circle, an unknown relative – has caused many on the right to open a vein and the let the despair flow out into the warm bath of misery, disappointment, and overextended metaphors. Why didn’t Bush clone Scalia in a dish and appoint him? Here, use some stem cells if you have to. Anyone but another Souter!...


...Keep one thing in mind: Souter was nominated by Bush 41, who stood for genial, ideologically indifferent governance by the Establishment. Bush 43, we’re constantly told by his opponents, is so besotted by neocon ideology he cannot blow his nose without calling Wolfowitz and asking if it’s okay to touch his left nostril. He would nominate a squishy cipher? Maybe....

...And it shouldn’t bother the administration that hard-core conservative pundits aren’t happy. They’re never happy nowadays. These were the people who caught a whiff of Souterism in John Robert’s nomination, and wouldn’t be happy unless a nominee announced his intention to back Souter into a corner in the cloakroom and give him a turbo-wedgie every day. Yes, the base would be happier if the Republicans acted like a party that had won all the elections, and pursued its agenda as unapologetically and brazenly as some accuse. But what does one expect? The operative word in that sentence is “Republicans,” the party that dare not speak its own name. If it’s pronounced Conservative, that is. "

Harriet Miers nominated by Bush

Bush has made his nomination...a quite controversial one...for the right. Both sides have expressed mirror image opinions of the nomination:

Stealth Candidate- Right fears she is a lefty stealth candidate, the Left fears she is a righty stealth candidate.

Both sides agree they don't know much about her political views, or judicial philosophy.

Here is her bio over at the Washington Post...

Harriet Ellan Miers was born in Dallas on Aug. 10, 1945.
Miers received her bachelor's degree in mathematics in 1967 and JD in 1970 from Southern Methodist University. Upon graduation, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970 to 1972. In 1972, Miers became the first woman hired at Dallas's Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely.
In March 1996, her colleagues elected her the first woman president of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers. She became the first woman to lead a Texas firm of that size.
Locke, Purnell eventually merged with a Houston firm and became Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, where Miers became co-managing partner of a firm with more than 400 lawyers.
Miers had a very distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co. and SunGard Data Systems Inc.
Throughout her career, she has been very active in the legal community and has blazed a trail for other women to follow.
* In 1985, Miers was selected as the first woman to become president of the Dallas Bar Association.
* In 1992, she became the first woman elected president of the State Bar of Texas. Miers served as the president of the State Bar of Texas from 1992 to 1993.
* She played an active role in the American Bar Association. She was one of two candidates for the number two position at the ABA, chair of the House of Delegates, before withdrawing her candidacy to move to Washington to serve in the White House. Miers also served as the chair of the ABA's Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice.
On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the nation's 100 most powerful attorneys and as one of the nation's top 50 women lawyers.
Miers also has been involved in local and statewide politics in Texas.
* In 1989, she was elected to a two-year term as an at-large candidate on the Dallas City Council. She chose not to run for re-election when her term expired.
* Miers also served as general counsel for the transition team of Governor-elect George W. Bush in 1994.
* From 1995 until 2000, Miers served as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, a voluntary public service position she undertook while maintaining her legal practice and other responsibilities. When then-Governor Bush appointed Miers to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission, it was mired in scandal, and she served as a driving force behind its cleanup.
Miers came to Washington, D.C., in 2001:
* She was appointed assistant to the president and staff secretary on Jan. 20, 2001.
* In 2003, Miers was promoted to assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff.
* Miers has served as counsel to the president since February 2005.
She is not married and does not have children.Two brothers and her mother live in Dallas; a third brother lives in Houston.