Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is disappointing. Miers has no judicial experience. Her qualifications are as head of the Texas State Lottery Commission and President of the Texas State Bar Association. No experience with Constitutional law.
As Bush made very clear, she was the 'first woman' to do a variety of things, became President of the Bar, and after that Bush gave her every job that she got.
Miers may well be up to the task of becoming a good Justice; the problem is that we don`t know. It is just as likely, or perhaps more likely, that she will become a rubber-stamp for Scalia or a swing vote incapable of setting strong precedents in the way that O`Connor did. In other words, either another Clarence Thomas, saying nothing, just following and nodding, or else a weak shadow of O`Connor, wielding considerable power to decide cases, but not the same level of intellectual fire-power.
With a long list of potential candidates who are both well qualified and acceptable to both sides of the aisle, Bush picked one that was never even on the radar. It`s really a baffling choice.
Perhaps Bush caved to the political pressure to nominate another woman or minority. He shouldn`t have had to, he`s unassailable on diversity, having appointed Alberto Gonzales, Janice Brown, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and the list goes on. Even if he felt that he had to nominate a woman or minority, there were plenty out there better qualified than Miers.
It`s possible that Bush nominated Miers to dodge a fight, but from all indications he`s in for one anyway. And this isn`t going to be a good old Republican vs. Democrat brawl: this is going to split the Republican party in a way that it has not been split in nearly the entirety of the Bush administration. There is a group in the House and Senate that has voted over the past several years as 'regulars' for Bush. Much of this core group is changing their tune.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Other justices have been nominated and done a fine job without prior judicial experience. In fact, a lot of people think we need someone without a background on the bench to balance out the judicial perspective of the court.
The fact is that Miers is a very experienced attorney, has held a variety of administrative positions as well, and has a diverse and extensive resume.
I probably wouldn't have chosen her, but the Senate would probably like my choice even less.
Dave
2 - Silas Kain
Miers lack of judicial experience brings a fresh perspective to the SCOTUS. I don't believe for a minute that she will be anyone's rubber stamp, especially for Scalia and Thomas. She is one of the highest regarded attorneys coming out of Texas and that, in itself, is a major accomplishment.
3 - Eric Berlin
The interesting thing is that it's conservatives who are most disturbed by this nomination thus far, with calls of cronyism and mindless affirmative action coming from the right.
The fact is that this choice is a bit of a wildcard. The proximity of Mier's to the Bush Circle leads to believe that Bush, for whatever reason, is looking to make a safe choice wiht someone he knows well.
4 - Silas Kain
I'll tell you, Eric, this is how Bush will circumvent a lasting influence from the far reaches of the right. I honestly believe that the last two years of his Presidency have the potential of going down as the two best years. He'll be able to divorce himself from the extreme right wing once and for all. I never bought his compassionate conservatism.
5 - Lee Richards
The Bush administration is one of the most politically inbred in our history--and, as all such, violate fundamental government integrity and undermine democracy. They are so busy pretending, congratulating and covering for each other, that becomes their standard of accomplishment, not seeing to the needs of the country and the business of the people. The notions that Bush is conservative, compassionate, decisive, etc., were created, shaped, staged and spun by Karen Hughes, Rove, Cheney, et al.
But I don't blame any of them for our fiscal, domestic and foreign problems that aren't being addressed. That was a given, certainly by 2004. I blame those who fell for it and voted this ethically-and-idea-challenged group into office and, even more, I blame those sorry excuses for citizens who don't vote at all, so that 51% of the approximately 50% of eligible voters who usually show up in a presidential election can give the treasury, armed forces and Supreme Court to whomever that minority chooses. (And a nose-thumb at the electoral college system that effectively disenfranchises all voters in a state who don't vote with the majority in their state; their votes for president don't help their candidate at all.)
Carpe Diem.