Harriet Mired

mired: to be entangled or hindered

Charles Krauthammer suggests a way out for the Harriet Miers dilemma:

Sen. Lindsey Graham has been a staunch and public supporter of this nominee. Yet on Wednesday he joined Brownback in demanding privileged documents from Miers's White House tenure.

Finally, a way out: irreconcilable differences over documents.

For a nominee who, unlike John Roberts, has practically no record on constitutional issues, such documentation is essential for the Senate to judge her thinking and legal acumen. But there is no way that any president would release this kind of information -- "policy documents" and "legal analysis" -- from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any president to get unguarded advice.

That creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege.

Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

Faces saved. And we start again.

Read the full article from The Washington Post here.

I suppose it's up to Miers to decide if she wants to publicly disclose her confidential White House documents. I disagree with Krauthammer's statement about 'forever (undermining) the ability of any president to get unguarded advice'.

The purpose of this right to privacy would be to protect any advisor to the President such that he or she would be able to come forth boldly and speak his or her views. Confidentiality would ensure the advisor of protection against potential threats which would stem from public criticism and backlash.

If Miers has no fears about making her past opinions and suggestions fully-known, then the White House should go ahead and allow this disclosure. If the President wants her on the Supreme Court that badly, why should he hesitate to do so.

Miers has to choose. Does she want to maintain her executive priviledge? How badly does she want the Associate Justice post?

Perhaps Miers has something to hide. Is there a possibility that some of her views were so highly controversial that if disclosed, would cause public outcry? If that is the case, then maybe she's not the right person to be charged with the responsibility anyway.

Someone with overly radical or conservative (probably the latter in this case) views may not be the US’s ideal candidate to sit on the Supreme Court as her judgement on cases will have colossal and permanent effects on the entire country and inevitably the rest of the world.