What’s the one thing that conservatives and moderates alike admire most about George W, Bush? It’s his core values. It’s the fact that he doesn’t wake up in the morning, lick his finger, and stick it up in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing, so he knows how to make policy. This president has had a long history of making decisions based primarily on his personal convictions. Why should this be any different?

Bush promised that his judicial nominees would be philosophically conservative, strict constitutionalist, who will cause the ideological balance on the Supreme Court to shift to the right. In nominating Miers, Bush clearly feels that he’s done just that. The thing that’s got most conservatives up a tree is that Miers was Bush’s choice and not theirs. And that’s why they tend to view this as a missed opportunity.

The elder President Bush didn’t know David Souter, but trusted the enthusiasm of Chief of Staff Sunnunu and Senator Rudman. The result? He got burned big time. President George W. Bush knows Harriet Miers, and knows her well. Bush nominated her specifically because she has exactly the philosophy of judicial restraint he favors.

The president is fully aware of what’s at stake. Roberts’s nomination was simply a conservative replacing a conservative. With Miers Bush believes he would be moving the court to the right. He feels confident that both of these picks will be conservative now and conservative 20 years from now.

What makes this even more intriguing is that ol’ “Dingy” Harry Reid seems to be taking all the credit for the Miers nomination, much to the chagrin of conservatives. Ried recently recounted how he “urged” Bush to consider her for the court. Sean Hannity suggests that this may well be a “Trojan Horse” nomination for the democrats on Capitol Hill. Now wouldn’t it be ironic if the favorite pick of the Democrats was in actuality their worst night mare?

Let’s not throw up our hands in despair just yet. I think we should wait until we hear from Miers as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Just keep in mind that Bush never promised to overturn Roe v. Wade. What he promised was nominees tht demonstrate judicial restraint.

I’m pretty arch-conservative in two ways, and I don’t like what I see so far: as a federalist (a limited federalist, which is still way more than virtually anyone in the major parties), I’m nervous. People tend not to transform magically into federalists on the bench, so I’m anticipating being disappointed.

I’m also a huge fan of robust separation of powers, and the fact that she was white house counsel really doesn’t bode well for this vanishing doctrine.