In what will undoubtedly be characterized as a surprise or "stealth" nomination by many, President Bush nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court earlier this morning. In delivering a potential curveball to Congressional Democrats, Bush has tapped someone with a history as a potent advocate but no judicial experience at all (save for a period of service as a law clerk in the federal district court).
Miers, who built her career on giving private advice rather than making public pronouncements, will pose a dilemma for congressional Democrats as they try to sort out what type of justice she would be. She is the first Supreme nominee with no prior judicial experience since 1971, when Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist were appointed.
Intriguingly, Bush has known Miers since the 1980s, and she worked on his 1994 campaign in Texas. He has previously described her as "a pit bull in size 6 shoes," and was the first woman president of both the Dallas Bar Association and the Texas Bar Association. Despite the likely public surprise at her nomination, the BBC indicates that her name had been floated as a possibility by both Republicans and Democrats. Words used to characterize her so far in print: ambitious, assertive, discrete, and selfless. "She just overcame any obstacles with hard work and dedication," according to Jerry Clements, a partner at the Texas law firm where she worked before moving to Washington DC.
Early reaction to her nomination has been uneasy and questioning. The BBC talkback page regarding the nomination include comments like "Her law career sounds very impressive, but I am wary of the fact that she has never served as a judge," and "I am concerned that she is from the President's inner circle and has not been an actual judge."
Finally, there was this comment:
Appointing someone who has no experience as a judge and who is a senior aid to the existing government can only be a political move to make the Supreme Court a pawn of the president.
Article comments
1 - DJRadiohead
This is going to be fascinating. Well done getting this up here so quickly Bill. I 'heard it here first.'
2 - bhw
At least she's a chick.
3 - Michael J. West
What are we to make of the fact that it's the neocons complaining the loudest today?
4 - Al Barger
I don't know about "neocons" ie hawks who never pay full retail, but David Frum and Rush Limbaugh have both expressed disappointment.
She might turn out to be great, but she's pretty old, so she's not likely going to be there that long. He's definitely giving up something there.
But moreover, he's picked someone with no judicial experience but close personal connection. She might turn out to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it sure smells like cronyism.
5 - Bob A. Booey
This was a weak, calculated pick.
I would vote "No" whether I was Democrat or Republican because this woman clearly doesn't have the background in case law and judicial philosophy to take a clear position on precedent and she's way, way too personally close to and involved with the President. She can't be objective in ruling against the executive branch as necessary -- she's a cipher who's being nominated because she's expected to be loyal to Bush's view of the world.
She's worked for him for years and has a close personal relationship with him, which is bad news. We shouldn't get into the business of nominating Presidential friends and "pit bulls."
When I heard the reports that Bush consulted 70+ Senators this week, I did think it'd be a woman but I don't think anyone thought it'd be her. Clearly, Bush will still have to do a sales job to tell people what she's about and to convince them she's not his personal judicial caddy.
She'll probably get approved (but probably with a slimmer margin than Roberts) because she's a woman and will be sold as an O'Connor type who's non-ideological and will decide case-by-case. But she's no O'Connor because she won't be able to maintain the independent perspective or resist influence by politics and politicians in order to be a true swing vote. Otherwise, Bush wouldn't have nominated her.
Here's hoping she does turn into an O'Connor after Bush leaves office and gains courage in her own convictions, however.
That is all.
6 - Bob A. Booey
Good job, Bill.
If she's approved, Miers will bring perhaps the least impressive to the resume ever in the history of the Court. That's just being honest -- from her academic background to her legal work (mainly as a bureaucrat and working for Bush), she's just not particularly distinguished.
I think Bush is really trying to sell people that she's a sweet, uncomplicated moderate who'll remind them of O'Connor. But O'Connor had an excellent resume and background in the law before she joined the Court. If people thought O'Connor's rulings were overly simplistic, I can't imagine what they'll make of the opinions Miers writes during the next three years.
That is all.
7 - Michael J. West
BAB...point taken about cronyism. But perhaps it would be fair to wait for the confirmation hearings, during which both parties will probably work Miers over hard, to decide about her qualifications? Bear in mind, as Bush pointed out, that Rehquist had never been a judge when he was nominated to the Court either.
Al: Bear in mind that age tends to be a red herring on the Court. Hell, John Paul Stevens was 55 when he was nominated to SCOTUS; that was 30 years ago.
8 - RogerMDillion
"In delivering a potential curveball to Congressional Democrats,"
Democrats like Reid were reported to have told Bush they would go along with Miers. It looks like it was the Conservatives you brushed Bush off the plate.
9 - BIll Wallo
I assume you mean "it was the Conservatives WHO brushed Bush off the plate," right?
Yes, I agree that appears to be the case, although it seems rather doubtful that the Democrats were particularly inclined after the fact to "go along" with Miers; it wasn't just the "Conservative" opposition which indicated that there might not have been enough votes to confirm Miers.
But hey, now the real fun begins.
10 - Dave Nalle
I'm sure Bush can find another stealth pro-choicer who's qualified.
Dave
11 - Nancy
Dave, did you mean "stealth pro-lifer"? 'Cause that's what he was trying to sell all the conservatives with his wink-wink-nudge-nudge religious conservative born-again evangelist christian song & dance. Bush has never been a pro-choicer & he's made no bones about it. Laura may be another matter, but W...? I doubt it.
12 - Dave Nalle
No, I meant what I typed, Nancy. Bush may never have admitted to his feelings about abortion, but that's a political decision. My guess is that he doesn't actually care one way or the other about it. Like a lot of politicians it's an issue which is seen as useful for attracting votes, but not really part of their personal agenda. So he walks the fine line of giving the right just enough mostly symbolic support to keep them happy while doing as little as possible of substance for them.
Dave