New Photos:

  New Ramblings:

  New Links:


Last Updated


Previous Posts

About the Blog

The thoughts and theories of a guy who basically should have gone to bed hours ago.

I know, I know - what's the point? But look at it this way - I stayed up late writing it, but you're reading it...

Let's call ourselves even & move on, OK?

Powered by Blogger

Friday, October 21, 2005

Getting out of the Miers Mess

I haven't written anything here about the Miers (or Roberts) nomination because, quite frankly, I don't know much about Supreme Court Justices or how they should be chosen. I will say this, though:

It shocked me that there is no law (or at least an unbreakable tradition) that states that Supreme Court Justice nominees must be judges by profession. I'm told other non-judges have been appointed in the past, but on the face of it, it seems to suggest that there isn't a single judge working in the U.S. today that is more qualified to be on the Supreme Court than this non-judge.

I've also been amazed at the reaction to Ms. Miers from those who call themselves conservatives. The concern seems to be primarily around her lack of qualifications as a conservative and her lack of stated conviction that Roe v. Wade must be overturned. Those who do mention her lack of experience as a judge tend to do so glancingly, either as an intro to the above two points, or as an afterthought. It makes me think that Bush could nominate a trained monkey for the court, and some people out there would complain that the monkey isn't sufficiently pro-life.

Then there's this (hat tip: InstaPundit). By asking Bush & Miers to violate attorney/client priviledge as part of the confirmation process, it seems as though Miers has to decide her first case before even broaching the confirmation hearings. The irony, of course, is that if she exhibits a strict belief in the right to privacy (which many advocate in a Supreme Court justice), then she's forced to withdraw her nomination. If she's willing to violate that right, then it could be used against her during the confirmation process as evidence of her willingness to legislate from the (hearing room) bench. All in all, a pretty slick political move for Graham & Brownback.

Finally, a question: if everyone (and it really does seem like everyone) thinks she's a bad choice, shouldn't the senate, who is hired to represent us, reject her nomination in a vote that resembles 100-0? Doesn't the fact that, despite all the dissatisfaction, she still stands a pretty good chance of being confirmed bother anyone? To me, it calls into question the purpose of the confirmation process in the first place.

posted by Brian at 12:58 PM


  • You don't really need an answer to this question, do you? Bush could nominate a crash test dummy to the court and pick up at least 40 votes in favor. That's because voting for his nominee is seen largely as a loyalty test and not as the Senate doing their job.

    Yes, this does call into question the confirmation process. Didn't you pick up on that when John Bolton went to the UN?

    By Anonymous jeff Porten, at 6:23 AM, October 27, 2005  

  • Bolton was different. The "usual suspects" were against him, while others thought that we absolutely needed someone who would shake things up to be the UN ambassador.

    Given the Republican majority, I'm not at all surprised he was confirmed - both as the "loyalty test" you speak of, and the fact that the majority of the senate probably agrees with Bush on this point.

    With Miers, everyone is dissatisfied, and yet there is (or now, was) the strong possibility of her comfirmation.

    By Blogger Brian, at 11:58 AM, October 27, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home