Some Hasty Stitches on Harriet Miers
---
I think the nomination of Harriet Miers is a disastrous decision, in terms of both leadership and politics.
The single biggest concern is of course that Miers has never even been a trial judge, let alone an appellate judge. It's not clear whether she's even done any significant appellate litigation, especially constitutional litigation, as a private attorney.
--As leadership, this is totally unsatisfactory. There were at least a dozen viable candidates with appellate court experience. Perhaps exceptions are warranted for truly outstanding candidates, but that is not the case here. Miers may be many things, but she is not unique.
--As politics, this is just plain stupid. Every one of the 44 Democrats in the Senate (plus independent Jim Jeffords) now has an easy excuse to vote "no" — "She's not even a judge, what more reason do I need?" It also invites the "cronyism" card, which, after Michael Brown, President Bush hardly needs.
--Remember the Gang of 14 and their "no filibuster" compromise over circuit judge appointments? That agreement included an exemption (i.e., allowing a filibuster) for "extraordinary circumstances." How much spin do Democrats need to assert that nominating a non-judge partisan political staffmember to the Supreme Court constitutes an "extraordinary circumstance"?
In short, a very foolish choice. I would not vote to confirm her under any circumstances — and I am no partisan liberal Democrat. And I think this battle is going to get very ugly.
UPDATE: The blog purple america explains what it does -- and does not -- mean to be the head of a state bar association, especially the Texas State Bar association.
And yes I'm aware that William Rehnquist was never a judge -- nowhere did I say that a judicial background was a necessary condition for confirmation to the Supreme Court. Calling those of us in the "she's never been a judge" crowd "stupid dolts" makes you, well, a stupid dolt.
What I am saying is that the burden of persuasion is now on Miers' apologists to explain why she is the intellectual equalivalent of the late Chief Justice (or, alternatively, any of the current Justices).
The single biggest concern is of course that Miers has never even been a trial judge, let alone an appellate judge. It's not clear whether she's even done any significant appellate litigation, especially constitutional litigation, as a private attorney.
--As leadership, this is totally unsatisfactory. There were at least a dozen viable candidates with appellate court experience. Perhaps exceptions are warranted for truly outstanding candidates, but that is not the case here. Miers may be many things, but she is not unique.
--As politics, this is just plain stupid. Every one of the 44 Democrats in the Senate (plus independent Jim Jeffords) now has an easy excuse to vote "no" — "She's not even a judge, what more reason do I need?" It also invites the "cronyism" card, which, after Michael Brown, President Bush hardly needs.
--Remember the Gang of 14 and their "no filibuster" compromise over circuit judge appointments? That agreement included an exemption (i.e., allowing a filibuster) for "extraordinary circumstances." How much spin do Democrats need to assert that nominating a non-judge partisan political staffmember to the Supreme Court constitutes an "extraordinary circumstance"?
In short, a very foolish choice. I would not vote to confirm her under any circumstances — and I am no partisan liberal Democrat. And I think this battle is going to get very ugly.
UPDATE: The blog purple america explains what it does -- and does not -- mean to be the head of a state bar association, especially the Texas State Bar association.
And yes I'm aware that William Rehnquist was never a judge -- nowhere did I say that a judicial background was a necessary condition for confirmation to the Supreme Court. Calling those of us in the "she's never been a judge" crowd "stupid dolts" makes you, well, a stupid dolt.
What I am saying is that the burden of persuasion is now on Miers' apologists to explain why she is the intellectual equalivalent of the late Chief Justice (or, alternatively, any of the current Justices).
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Posted by KipEsquire on
3 October 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
