Who is Harriet Miers? President Bush's surprise pick to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor has many in Washington scratching their heads, and with good cause.
Harriet Miers has never been a judge. Her resume, to say the least, is unimpressive. When John Roberts was nominated he had two years of judicial experience and, although little was known of his judicial philosophy, he was qualified nonetheless. With the nomination of Miers, President Bush now puts forward a candidate with unknown judicial leanings and sub-par qualifications.
In The Daily Cardinal last week, UW-Madison political science professor Charles Franklin said, \I don't know how many justices have been appointed from the Southern Methodist University Law School, but my guess is it's not that many."" He added that past nominees were ""usually clerks for the Supreme Court or at least an appellate court."" Miers was neither.
So far, reactions to Miers have been mixed. Surprisingly, short of actually endorsing the nominee, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, praised her, stating that her inexperience is actually a virtue. Last week, Senator Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said, ""Today is a day, I guess, of some hope-there's hope Harriet Miers is a mainstream nominee.""
The hope that she is a mainstream nominee is not enough. The Supreme Court needs a nominee who is qualified for the position, not a crony who called President Bush ""cool."" The lesson learned from the FEMA debacle-inexperienced cronies will fail-should be applied here.
Meanwhile, conservatives, after expecting a nominee that would pander to their base, are up-in-arms over Miers' nomination. In an act of sheer hypocrisy, Republican senators are demanding more information, but not receiving any. When Democrats made the same demand for more information about Judge Roberts, they were likewise quashed.
However, in explaining his support for Miers, James Dobson, founder of the conservative Focus on the Family, said, ""Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about."" How is it that Dobson knows more about the nominee than the Senate may ever know? It only further proves that many in this country value their own agendas higher than judicial integrity.
In the weeks to come, we are sure to see an intricate web of politics spun by both sides of the aisle. By not coming out immediately to condemn this nomination, Democrats are trying to prove that they do not deserve the obstructionist label placed on them recently. Moreover, they hold the view that Miers may become the next David Souter of the Supreme Court, a stealth nominee whom many thought was conservative, but turned out to be quite liberal.
Harriet Miers is not the same kind of stealth nominee as Souter. As a close friend of President Bush, the president knows exactly how she will influence the court. She is just another crony to add to his long list. He would not have made this nomination without knowing for sure how she would rule.
Right now it appears Democrats are willing to sit back on this one, let those on the right side of the political spectrum duke it out and hope she will become another Souter. This political ploy may work or may not work, but it is still not honorable.
Conservatives have good reason to dislike Miers, and just as they seem to be suddenly acquiring standards, Democrats seem to have lost theirs.
For the sake of the Supreme Court's integrity, Harriet Miers should not be the candidate to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.
With no prior experience, nothing known of her judicial philosophy, and a blatant
move of cronyism, it is easy to see she is not qualified for
this position.
