Randy Barnett and George Will both make strong cases for the Senate to consider opposing the Miers nomination.
A president should generally be allowed to appoint who he wants to the Supreme Court, but I have reservations about this Miers selection. If it were just a matter of her stances on certain issues being a question mark, it would not justify opposing her confirmation. I supported the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, even though his ideology was unclear, because he was incredibly brilliant and well-prepared for the job. Don’t get me wrong–I’m not implying that Miers is a loser. Obviously, her success as a female lawyer in Texas speaks volumes for her character and perseverance. I just think that a Supreme Court Justice should meet a higher standard.
Furthermore, there is the concern of cronyism. I think the president should be cut some slack if he chooses to appoint loyal associates as ambassadors or cabinet secretaries, because these positions involve working closely with the president as well as communicating and implementing administration policy. But a justice on the Supreme Court has an obligation to the judiciary and is a check on presidential power. Therefore, personal loyalty to the president raises more questions.
Friends who have worked with her in the Counsel’s Office say she is “wicked smart” and “not getting enough credit from the media.” I think it was appropriate for Bush to replace O’Connor with a woman. And it’s not that unusual for a supreme court justice to come from outside the judiciary….seems that diversity of legal experience on the Court would even be a good thing. Anyway, I just wanted to offer a slight counterpoint, although I don’t have anything glowing to say.
From the history of the Supreme Court, what make you think that the people that make of the court are of any higher standard than anyone else? Half are senile, and there half are fools. Mier will fall into the harmless senile at worst.