The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is the singular worst decision of the George W. Bush administration. It has split the Republican base from the President in a way that has not happened previously and reinforced the charges of cronyism on the part of his Administration. There’s simply no other way to put it – Miers is the worst possible choice.
Even if Miers were a committed conservative, she does not possess the judicial acumen necessary to be an adequate member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Given that there are many doubts about her views on Constitutional jurisprudence (such as it is), the risks inherent in nominating someone with no practical experience and no real record should have torpedoed the idea instantly.
I must agree with Alexander Hamilton in this case when he made the following argument in the Federalist #76:
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
The Senate’s role is to “advise and consent” on judicial nominations in the fashion that Hamilton argued. The Senate should not obstruct nominees for partisan political purposes – at the same time they should not provide a rubber stamp to an unqualified nominee.
Unless Harriet Miers demonstrates an undiscovered aptitude on matters of Constitutional law, the Senate of the United States should exercise their Constitutional rights and refuse to confirm the nomination of Ms. Miers. Political concerns must take a back seat to the values of the Republic, and the relationship between Ms. Miers and the President clearly does not allow her to be a dispassionate justice, nor does she possess the kind of understanding of Constitutional law that any member of the Supreme Court should have. Her gender, educational history, or any other side issue is irrelevant. Harriet Miers is simply unfit for office.
For the good of the party, and more importantly for the good of the Republic, the Senate should end this travesty.
I have to agree with you, finely aged-one, but for different reasons. As an attorney and legal scholar, I think we should always have someone on the Court who has actually practiced law in a private setting. Even a brilliant mind like Scalia’s needs the tempering of the experience of working on real cases that affect real people. The appellate process is sterile, those with only the experience of the classroom or government service (Roberts) don’t have the same viewpoint of a lawyer who has won or lost a case for a real person.
The Court should never be a monolith of either judicial views or experience. John Marshall was never a professor of constitutional law or an appellate court judge, remember, one’s resume is not the only barometer of legal scholarship we should consider.
As to a “check upon a spirit of favoritism by a President”: boy howdy did you nail that one. Before W. is done we’ll have Karl Rove on the Court, Dick Cheney heading the Fed and the Bush twins with lifetime appointments to the Joint Chiefs.
“The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is the singular worst decision of the George W. Bush administration.”
It’s not even in the top-25.
“Miers is the worst possible choice.”
Sadly, she may have been the least disgusting person on Bush’s “list” of potential nominees. Of course, that’s not exactly a compliment considering the list.
“Even if Miers were a committed conservative, she does not possess the judicial acumen necessary to be an adequate member of the Supreme Court of the United States”
Just last month, you wrote a glowing review of William Rehnquist’s service to the Court. Like Miers, he did not “possess the judicial acumen necessary to be an adequate member of the SCOTUS.” What makes Miers less worthy than the similarly-qualified Rehnquist?
“the Senate of the United States should exercise their Constitutional rights and refuse to confirm the nomination of Ms. Miers”
My money’s against that happening. The Republican Party is interested in damage control and self-preservation at this point. GOP Senators are not gonna drive a stake through the heart of their embattled President and weaken their appearance of unity before next year’s midterm election. And the Democrats are highly unlikely to view Miers as filibuster-worthy. Unless she withdraws her nomination, she’s in.
From a position of pure politics, overwhelming Democratic support would probably work in their favor- and leave even more egg on the President’s face.
I wouldn’t approve her, though. The eminently qualified, Rehnquistian Roberts is one thing… Miers is another. Just because she isn’t repugnant doesn’t mean that she belongs anywhere near the bench.
Rehnquist had more experience in Constitutional Law, and was a much better legal mind that Miers is. Plus, he clerked for a Circuit Court judge, not a Dictrict Court judge – that’s a higher level of judgeship that deals with more Constitutional issues.
Miers just doesn’t have any experience in Constitutional law – which is the one thing every SCOTUS candidate must have to be viable.