October 03, 2005
And the Punchline Is...?
Harriet Miers?
She may very well shake out to be a competent justice, but Bush seems to have made the conscious decision to go with someone hard to debunk rather than the most qualified peerson for the position.
Via CNN:
President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers on Monday to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.Bush announced his choice in a televised Oval Office event saying, "For the past five years Harriet Miers has served in critical roles in our nation's government."
Miers said she was grateful and humbled by the nomination. (Watch: Miers has little judicial experience -- 2:30)
"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society," she said.
If confirmed by the Senate, Miers, 60, would join Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second sitting female justice on the bench. O'Connor became the court's first ever female justice in 1981.
Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association. She also served on the Dallas City Council.
Miers may very well end up being an excellent justice, but running purely by her bio, color me unimpressed for now.
On the other hand, if Democrats have pre-committed to a filibuster as some have theorized, Miers might be the perfect foil.
I can hear Chuck Shumer now: "Rooooooooove!"
Update: Feddie at Confirm Them is not happy, saying "I am done with Bush." David Bernstein offers up a more thoughtful analysis at The Volokh Conspiracy. Captain Ed seems to feel the same way about Miers as I do, so at least I'm in good company.
Many conservative commentators are disappointed with President Bush’s SCOTUS pick because there is no air of certainty concerning her constitutional views. There is a lot of speculation relative to her being a difficult nominee for the dems to obstruct without being extremely obvious to the populace. As a conservative, I would have been much happier with a known quantity, even if it meant a fight in the Senate. Supreme Court vacancy is the second most important reason why Bush garnered my vote, the first being the war against terrorism. We are now in the wait-and-see mode to find out if this Republican stealth candidate will bear the desired fruit.
Posted by: Old Soldier at October 3, 2005 09:42 AMAs a liberal, my reaction is that this one might be less nuclear than other choices, for the reason that her main problem is pretty pedestrian: she's not very qualified. If she'd been a Bork, that would have been an epic battle over where America stands on issues. But now, Democrats can simply say, "Forget extremism or any of that; she just doesn't have a distinguished enough career."
John Roberts also had (basically) no judicial experience, but he was undeniably a first-rate lawyer with very relevant appellate experience. Miers graduated from a 3rd tier school and was just some unknown litigator for 20 years. Now, not everyone was Mr. Brainiac like Roberts, or Souter. For nominees, there's also the mold of "politically experienced person", like Earl Warren. But Miers doesn't have that either; Warren and Hugo Black and O'Connor had shown political acumen at an advanced level, in heterogenous environments. Miers was just Texas Lottery Chair and Dallas City Council Member. Her other political experience is just appointive offices. So she has neither the out of saying "I'm smart" or saying "I've got political smarts", either of which has been enough to get you past the opposition.
Posted by: joe at October 3, 2005 12:52 PM
