Warning: purely political post. Feel free to ignore.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.
George Will, in today's Washington Post
I think we can all agree that Harriet Mier's principal qualification for the Supreme Court is having been Bush's lawyer. I can see why someone elected to the Presidency by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court would want a loyalist on the Court. I just don't see why the Senate has to consent in this case.
I don't subscribe to the notion that the Senate is obliged to accept the President's choice unless he or she is grossly disqualified. I doubt that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they gave the Senate veto rights over appointments. To my mind, the Senate ought to be able to reject anyone who's simply inappropriate -- for example because they are a crony appointment. Look where the Senate's rubber stamping got us with Brownie.
I also think the new tactic of stealth appointees is bad for the Republic. Don't want the Senate to find any gross disqualifications? Pick someone with no record. Do we really want people with no record, either as a judge or a legislator, interpreting our laws?
Miers should be struck down not on partisan grounds -- apparently she was Harry Reid's idea, of all people -- but because the Court deserves better. I don't like Roberts' politics, but at least he's worthy of the court.
If her main qualification is that she "will not change", then she is not just unqualified, she is dangerously unqualified. It is the JOB of the Supreme Court to oversee the judicial decsions of the entire Court system but it is also the JOB of the Supreme Court to ensure that all laws passed are constitutional. This means that regardless of the Intent of the legistlatures, the product must meet stringent requirements. Laws have been passed for a lot of bad reasons and even good laws have failed to meet the mark when finally put in the field. An unchanging idealogue with no previous opinions recorded is hardly the type of person that I would want sticking up for my rights.
I find it hard to believe that there is no one more qualified than she in the USA. All that I can see is that George W. Bush is the laziest President in history.
THIS is what happens when we "elect" a freakin' idjit for President.
He's never been a success at anything else he's done, WHY would people think he could pull this off is beyond me.
I wish I could take SOME consolation from not having voted for him. Sadly, that just seems a pyrrhic statement these days.
It is nuts that Bush could pick one of the most qualified and possibly best nominee in the last 20 years, politics aside, and then go and choose his pet lawyer.
Back to Complications Ensue main blog page.