Scalia Or Souter?(ISSUES & INSIGHTS)(EDITORIALS)(Editorial)

Supreme Court: Harriet Miers may turn out to be a terrific justice who understands the proper, limited role of the judiciary. Or she may be a political hack. We don't know. Maybe President Bush doesn't know, either.

Miers has for years been a prominent player on Bush's political team, not only in her current role as White House counsel, but as deputy chief of staff -- Karl Rove's current title -- and as staff secretary, which is the powerful post of editing the president's speeches and deciding what lands on his desk for his review.

The president told us of Miers' integrity, of how her mother taught her the difference between right and wrong, of the honesty she brought to a corrupt Texas Lottery Commission, and of the time she has devoted to a dozen charities.

These admirable qualities might be encouraging if Harriet Miers were being appointed, say, attorney general. But at stake here is one of President Bush's greatest challenges and biggest campaign promises: curbing the power of those who wear black robes and enjoy lifetime tenure.

We have a Supreme Court that this year outrageously gave local governments the right to seize people's homes on behalf of developers. It's a court that for the past half-century has claimed the Constitution lets nine unelected justices decide on a wide array of issues, from segregation to political advertising to our personal lives.

Republican presidents have squandered previous chances to tip the balance and end the activism that came into vogue during the Warren Court. We have Gerald Ford to thank for John Paul Stevens -- perhaps the court's most liberal member. It was George H.W. Bush who gave us David Souter. And even Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy.

Will Miers be George W. Bush's misstep? Or will this appointee be like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas? They ...