Monday, October 03, 2005
at least he nominated a woman
So the President has nominated longtime friend and personal attorney Harriet Miers to the seat on the Supreme Court being vacated by Arizona native Sandra Day O'Connor.
WaPo has a profile of Miers.
This isn't the first time the person the President selected to identify who to choose for a certain job ended up with the job. Remember how Cheney was in charge of vetting potential VP nominees in 2000 and ended up identifying himself? The White House Counsel is traditionally responsible for identifying potential Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Nominees.
There is of course obvious concern about the fact that Miers has never been a jurist and has scant record of the kind of judge she would be. Let's see how this confirmation process develops.
What's bugging me is all this talk of balance on the court and whose seat is whose. Seats on the Supreme Court don't belong to the person who occupy them, those seats "belong" to the American people, if they belong to anyone at all. I appreciate the talk of maintaining balance on the Court, but there's no statutory or Constitutional requirement to do so.
Of course any president will nominate someone who he believes shares his idealogical views, despite any protestations about a "litmus test" for nominees. That's his perogative and it's to be expected. I don't him begrudge him that one bit. I wish he wouldn't, but it's his Constitutional right as President of the United States to nominate who he sees fit.
I abhor the idea of the Court moving to the right even a fraction of an inch, but these arguments about Roberts being passable because he doesn't change the political calculus of the court are just intellectually dishonest. Democratic Senators would be better serving their constituents if they focused less on maintaining some kind of imaginary balance on the court and started advocating for a stronger court filled with Justices who share our values and evolving interpretation of the Constitution.
Harriet Miers is a largely unknown quantity beyond her loyalty to this President. Loyalty is not a qualification for the Supreme Court. She may have been a trailblazer in the legal profession as a woman, but that doesn't qualify her either. If she doesn't fit the mold we define for a Supreme Court justice, we have no choice but to oppose her, as we should have opposed Roberts. This is no time for political timidity.
But then, why start standing up for principles now?
WaPo has a profile of Miers.
This isn't the first time the person the President selected to identify who to choose for a certain job ended up with the job. Remember how Cheney was in charge of vetting potential VP nominees in 2000 and ended up identifying himself? The White House Counsel is traditionally responsible for identifying potential Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Nominees.
There is of course obvious concern about the fact that Miers has never been a jurist and has scant record of the kind of judge she would be. Let's see how this confirmation process develops.
What's bugging me is all this talk of balance on the court and whose seat is whose. Seats on the Supreme Court don't belong to the person who occupy them, those seats "belong" to the American people, if they belong to anyone at all. I appreciate the talk of maintaining balance on the Court, but there's no statutory or Constitutional requirement to do so.
Of course any president will nominate someone who he believes shares his idealogical views, despite any protestations about a "litmus test" for nominees. That's his perogative and it's to be expected. I don't him begrudge him that one bit. I wish he wouldn't, but it's his Constitutional right as President of the United States to nominate who he sees fit.
I abhor the idea of the Court moving to the right even a fraction of an inch, but these arguments about Roberts being passable because he doesn't change the political calculus of the court are just intellectually dishonest. Democratic Senators would be better serving their constituents if they focused less on maintaining some kind of imaginary balance on the court and started advocating for a stronger court filled with Justices who share our values and evolving interpretation of the Constitution.
Harriet Miers is a largely unknown quantity beyond her loyalty to this President. Loyalty is not a qualification for the Supreme Court. She may have been a trailblazer in the legal profession as a woman, but that doesn't qualify her either. If she doesn't fit the mold we define for a Supreme Court justice, we have no choice but to oppose her, as we should have opposed Roberts. This is no time for political timidity.
But then, why start standing up for principles now?
