Is Miers all she appears?

this from WND:

According to Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, Miers has taken positions as White House counsel that violate the law banning women in combat.

"As White House counsel, Ms. Miers either approved of the Department of Defense's illegal assignments of women in units required to be all-male, which is still continuing in violation of the law requiring notice to Congress in advance, or she was oblivious to the legal consequences of those assignments," she said.

Donnelly believes the actions of Miers could lead directly to a future court ruling requiring women to register with the Selective Service for the draft because they are now being, against the wishes of Congress, assigned to land combat.

.And...

Meanwhile, during Miers long affiliation with the American Bar Association, she submitted a 1999 report to the ABA's house of delegates that included recommendations to develop and establish an International Criminal Court and the enactment of laws and public policy providing that the sexual orientation of adults be no bar to adoption of children.

Under the heading Family Law and subheading Adoption, the document states: "Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child."

and...

Also included, under the heading International Law and Practice, is a recommendation for "the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court."

Along with the proposed agenda was a memo, dated Oct. 28, 1998, that explained the document.

"The Committee urges all Delegates to review this list for items of interest to their constituencies, and to act as the catalyst for further contact and action so that each entity will have the earliest opportunity for consideration and input."

The memo is signed by Miers as chairwoman of the Select Committee of the House. (emphases added)

Now each of these in and of themselves constitute no real reason to shoot down the nomination, since oftentimes the final decisions of committees have little to do with the sentiments of the committee chair. But when the evidence starts accumulating, questions are necessarily raised.

And now this:

In 1995, the year George W. Bush beat out Democrat Ann Richards for governor of Texas, Barnes helped secure the Texas Lottery contract for GTECH, a prize which granted Barnes 4 percent of GTECH's Texas revenue, as long as GTECH continued to hold the contract. Why did GTECH buy out Barnes? Texas was the largest lottery contract GTECH had managed to secure – a contract estimated to be worth some quarter of a billion dollars in revenue to GTECH in just two years (1995-1997). But by 1997, the Texas State Lottery was embroiled in controversy that involved allegations of political kickbacks, overcharges to the state, and under-performance by GTECH.

For a while after the payoff, Barnes stayed below the radar until he was forced to give a deposition in September 1999. The deposition was in a lawsuit filed by Lawrence Littwin, a fired Texas Lottery director who alleged he lost his job as a result of political influence wielded by GTECH. Littwin had charged that much of GTECH's political clout came because Barnes was alleged to have helped get George Bush into the National Guard so he could avoid active duty during the Vietnam War – charges that Barnes affirmed under oath. Littwin was fired by the Texas Lottery Commission after only six months on the job. The Littwin lawsuit was settled out of court when GTECH agreed to pay him $300,000.

The chairman of the Texas Lottery from 1995-2000, as all this scandal was coming down, was none other than attorney Harriet Miers.

If you think that GTECH lost the Texas Lottery contract after the Littwin lawsuit, think again. Miers made sure an audit of GTECH was halted and a lower-bidding contractor alternative was dismissed. GTECH retained the lucrative deal and life in Texas remained good for everybody involved – even for Littwin who now reportedly had some $300,000 of GTECH's money to ease his pain.

Even if the above regarding Barnes and Bush's TANG service, as well as Miers' role in the GTECH scandal prove unsubstantiated, you can bet the moonbats will glom onto it like stink on Michael Moore. A stink that will rightly or wrongly (though necessarily) emanate throughout the greater Bush administration and to the President himself.

Still, Bush continues to maintain that Miers won't waver on the philosophy upon which was the basis of his decision: originalist interpretation based on a strict constructionist philosophy of law. Senator Orrin Hatch was on the Hannity radio show this afternoon, and gave a glowing account as to her character, as well as his unmitigated confidence in her as to her fitness for SCOTUS.

The jury is still out on this one; however, if the intent of the President was to circumvent the baggage and battles more normally associated with confirmation of known commodities, while at the same time tilting SCOTUS toward an overall originalist philosophy, it appears that he may have failed on both accounts.

I wait to be proven wrong. I hope that I am.

***UPDATE***

In my quest to be proven wrong, i was directed to this post by Thomas Lifson:

The President’s smashing victory in obtaining 78 votes for the confirmation of John Roberts did not confirm these conservative critics in their understanding of the President’s formidable abilities as a nominator of Justices. Au contraire, this taste of Democrat defeat whetted their blood lust for confirmation hearing combat between the likes of a Michael Luttig or a Janice Rogers Brown and the Judiciary Committee Democrats. Possibly their own experience of debating emotive liberals over-identifies them with verbal combat as political effectiveness.

In part, I think these conservatives have unwittingly adopted the Democrats’ playbook, seeing bombast and ‘gotcha’ verbal games as the essence of political combat. Victory for them is seeing the enemy bloodied and humiliated. They mistake the momentary thrill of triumph in combat, however evanescent, for lasting victory where it counts: a Supreme Court comprised of Justices who will assemble majorities for decisions reflecting the original intent of the Founders.

and

The members of the Supreme Court all see themselves as serving the public and the law to the best of their abilities. Their self-regard depends on their belief in the righteousness and fairness of their deliberations. They must listen to the arguments of the other Justices. But their susceptibility to viewpoints they had not yet considered is matter of both an intellectual and emotional character. Open-mindedness uusally requires an unfreezing of deeply and emotionally-held convictions.

Having proven herself capable of charming the likes of Harry Reid, leader of the Senate Democrats, is there much room for doubt that Harriet Miers is capable of opening up opponents emotionally to hear and actually consider as potentially worthwhile the views of those they might presume to be their enemies?

But when everything is sifted out, it is how she rules that will be the deciding factor in deciding the wisdom of this choice. Again... time will tell.