Everyone opposing Miers is apparently obliged to note that she’s a lovely person, even if totally unqualified.
President George W. Bush, alleged adherent to the judicial philosophies of Justices Thomas and Scalia, has decided — along with “Architect” Karl Rove — that Harriet Miers, a non-judge and graduate of a second-rate law school, is the “best” choice for the Supreme Court of the United States. If “Nice Lady from Texas” was Bush’s only criterion, one wishes he would have chosen Laura.
Everyone opposing Miers is apparently obliged to note that she’s a lovely person, even if totally unqualified and an insult to truly brilliant judges like Janice Rogers Brown. Consequently, I join my colleagues: Harriet Miers should be commended for her graciousness, articulacy, and obvious intelligence. She is quite clearly a bright woman, dedicated to her current role as White House Counsel.
I do not object to Miers for any reason other than the clear and irresistible fact that she is wholly unqualified. She may be another Nino Scalia (though such a notion is overwhelmingly unlikely), but that’s not the point; we don’t need a puppet on the Supreme Court, happy to follow the wishes of her appointer. We need a Supreme Court oozing with brilliance. Harriet Miers, with her total lack of experience or demonstrable intellectual prowess, cannot possibly contribute to that goal. If Harriet Miers turns out to be anything more than a mediocre Justice, it will be a fluke.
It is not necessary, as weak defenders of Miers have pointed out, that one serve as a judge prior to serving on the Supreme Court. Rehnquist proved this with great enthusiasm. What is necessary to serve on the Supreme Court is something beyond Knowing the President. I have no problem with cronyism when it comes to choosing the Undersecretary of HUD. The Supreme Court is a somewhat different story.
At the risk of emotionalizing an argument that should be entirely reasoned, Bush’s selection is personally insulting to those of us who have spent years defending him. Perhaps he doesn’t know this, living in the White House and all, but some people — quite a few, actually — don’t particularly like him. Nonetheless, Republicans in blue states have stood up for him, day and night, for a half-decade. If he thinks Harriet Miers is an acceptable show of thanks, he’s never been more wrong.
Perhaps more important than what conservatives feel right now is what conservatives would have felt had this happened prior to the election. If Bush had blown this opportunity before last November, John F. Kerry would currently be sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The Senate should reject this nominee with zeal — and not for the lame reasons Democrats manufactured to oppose John Roberts. As Orrin Hatch said tersely and correctly, anyone who didn’t vote in favor of Roberts was admitting that he or she would never vote for any Republican nominee. But Harriet Miers is no John Roberts. She’s a very successful lawyer, who may — may — turn out to be bright enough and wise enough to sit on the High Court. But we have no idea. It’s not that her paper trail isn’t extensive enough — it’s that it’s nonexistent.
In opposing Democrat-led filibusters, I’ve relied on the fact that the Constitution specifically compels Senators to offer their “Advice and Consent” on Judges nominated by the Executive. I rely on it today, too. Unless it soon becomes clear that Harriet Miers has, throughout her career, proved to be among the top in her profession — by dint of special knowledge, skill, or experience — she must not be confirmed. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a pioneer attorney at the premier liberal legal PAC in the country, was much more qualified for the Supreme Court than Harriet Miers.
Janice Rogers Brown was born in Alabama years prior to Brown v. Board of Education, yet she rose — through her own hard work and brilliance — to the California Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit. She has proven herself, through her achievements in academia, the private sector, and government, to be a magnificently talented woman. She’s also been confirmed, incidentally, by the United States Senate. None of this is true of Harriet Miers.
This isn’t Vegas. We shouldn’t have to gamble on the future of the Supreme Court. President Bush may know Harriet Miers as a friend and faithful employee, but the rest of the country does not. She has not proved herself worthy of the Supreme Court, and, frankly, George W. Bush hasn’t effectively portrayed her as worthy of the Supreme Court. The Senate must oppose her nomination vigorously.
isterrett@hotmail.com
Read more articles by Isaiah Z. Sterrett
