Let me start by reiterating that I don't object to Harriet Miers' nomination for the Supreme Court. I don't think it's a bad thing for a Justice to not have been a judge before, nor do I think it necessary that a Supreme Court Justice have an Ivy League pedigree - SMU is a fine school.
Now, I don't understand who President Bush was trying to impress with the nomination, given the backlash on almost all fronts. Even Mr. Robert Bork is speaking out against her, noting her support of Affirmative Action and admonishing her lack of support for Constitutional Originalism. I've read on more than one conservative site that Mr. Bork is the nominee that "should have" been selected to the Court over Justice Kennedy in the late 80's. If the Ghost of Supreme Court Nominations Past can't endorse Ms. Miers, how can those who pine for a redo of 1987 do any different? And if the hardcore conservatives can't support her nomination, and the liberals won't support her nomination, and the moderates want to know far more and aren't reassured by constant reassurances that she is qualified and her religion is a matter of her qualification and she'll strictly interpret the Constitution despite the Constitution's apparent condemnation of weighing religion in selection for public office (I stand by my assertion that President Bush's tacit acknowledgment that he considered her religion as a part of her qualification as a de facto religious test and thus prohibited by a strict constructionist interpretation of article VI, Section III), then who is left for the President to have intended to appease?
3 comments:
My husband had a theory as soon as her nomination was announced, that she was being set up to get rejected. Unfortunately, I can't remember how the rest of the theory went--what Bush would have gained by doing that when it came to a second nominee.
I've object to all the original protests about Miers' nomination. I'm untroubled by her SMU degree and by her lack of actual judicial experience, both of which I consider advantages, not disadvantages. I don't mind at all that she's made a political journey, from liberal to conservative, having made the same journey myself. I am a little concerned, though, by her weird answers to the questionnaire. It sounds as if she starting to snap under the stress of the constant attacks on her, and that does not bode well.
In any event, I'm content to wait and see what kind of an intellect the hearings themselves reveal (assuming that the fine minds on the Judicial Committee can stop bloviating and give her the chance to answer).
Fat chance, BW. During the Roberts hearings I was ready to start beating on something if the senators didn't shut up and let the man actually speak. I eventually had to just turn the radio off.
I'd always thought SMU was a fine school--has it become unacceptable to some simply because Miers took her degree there?
I haven't read the questionnaire answers, but now I'm going to have to. I do have a question about the much-maligned birthday card that she sent to Bush--why on earth is that card still around, and being made available to the media? I'd kill any of my friends who produced a birthday card for others to look at that I'd sent them 10 years ago. Then again, my friends wouldn't do that.
Post a Comment