Who?
Harriet Miers, the current Counsel to the President, has just been named as Bush’s new nominee for the Supreme Court. While holding a position as a judge is not a prerequisite for a Supreme Court appointment, does anyone else think that selecting Miers is a cop-out by Bush? With no record to defend, and all correspondence between Miers and the administration protected by attorney/client privilege, how does anyone know where this nominee stands on core issues? Furthermore, doesn’t Bush realize that most of the informed citizens of this country are already scrutinizing his favoritism towards White House insiders? I have to believe that there are more qualified and more transparent candidates for this position. Frankly, this selection scares the hell out of me.
posted by Todd @ 10/03/2005 09:46:00 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Interesting point on the transparency (or lack thereof) of this nomination, Todd. So far, I can't find any information on her other than that she's a loyal Bushie dating back to his days as Texas governor. Apparently, Bush has described her as a "pit bull in size 6 shoes." At the risk of being accused of partisanship for criticizing this nomination, I have to wonder if there wasn't someone a little more qualified out there to get the nod. Having absolutely no judicial experience doesn't exactly inspire confidence in her abilities for this post. And it would appear that the choice of someone with no real idealogical track record is an attempt to scoot someone else through the confirmation process without raising any red flags. For all we know, she could be a raging anti-abortionist, anti-affirmative action judicial activist. Or not. The point is we have no idea, nor do I expect will we before all is said and done.
Before it becomes a point of justification, I am aware that there have been 35 Supreme Court Justices in the past who did not have experience on the bench. However, times have changed. What was once a formality twenty years ago, the Senate's questioning and confirmation process has become a very public event with the advent of 24 hour news service. I remember vividly the Senate hearings for Justice Thomas, and I watched Chief Justice Roberts' hearings with the same interest and enthusiasm. I don't feel that Meirs will allow any light to be shed on her beliefs or interpretations of the Constitution, both of which are securely in the focus of the informed public. Also, I find Bush's labeling of Meirs as "a pit bull" very disconcerting. Does this label imply that she is unyielding to legal precedent, and that her personal agenda will guide her decisions? I certainly hope not. In contrast, I have the utmost confidence in Roberts, a person who is obviously well versed in legal precedent, and who seems to be predisposed to maintain the status quo of previous court decisions.
Hey!! A district court clerkship is a fabulous experience that prepares one to be Emperor of the World!! Heh, heh.
But seriously, folks. I am surprised by this nomination. However, the other folks he was considering were wackos, so I at least am trying to keep an upbeat temperment until we hear more about her. Maybe it'll be good, maybe bad. Heck, probably bad. Better than someone we already know is terrible (i.e. Priscilla Owen or Edith Jones).
The comment that surprised, gratified and encouraged me was one quoted in the AP made by an anti-abortion, right wing activist. He said:
"'It's not that we don't know anything, and the small pieces of information we do know are disappointing. For example, she's Southern Methodist, notoriously pro-abortion,' said Troy Newman of Operation: Rescue."
It gives me hope that this is true, and surprises me (and makes me laugh the laugh of the righteous) because of the big right-wing push (read RNC, other right-wing groups, Sean Hannity, etc.) to portray Democrats as anti-Catholic for raising abortion rights questions about Catholic nominees like Roberts during the various judicial nomination fights. While that bit of slander was ridiculous, this re-cements the conclusion as to which party is the party of religious bigotry.
Newest sign of the apocalypse: I saw a clip of a Charles Schumer (D-NY) press conference on the Miers nomination. He seemed upbeat and positive, saying that what he'd learned so far indicated she is a good consensus nominee. Positive reaction for a W nominee!
I'm stocking up on canned foods and buying duct tape.
I read an article this morning that shed some light on the possible motivation for her appointment: "What Ms. Miers does bring to the court is a long record of loyalty to Mr. Bush, a trait that some scholars said would be attractive to the White House at a time when the court faces a welter of conflicts, beyond abortion and other social issues, that are of immediate concern to the administration. Foremost among them, said William P. Marshall, a former deputy White House counsel in the Clinton administration, are executive power and government secrecy. In both areas, Mr. Bush has sought to establish wide latitude for the executive branch, especially in battling terrorism and religious extremism at home and abroad."
On a personal note, I'm cautiously optimistic. The fact that the social conservatives are disappointed has to be a good thing. And, hey, it could be A LOT worse.
Interesting point, Fox. Without Roe, there is just taxes and homophobia.
Post a Comment
<< Home