The Shifting Supreme Court
posted by queen_spoo | 9:47 AM 
Today, Bush announced his nomination for the resigning Sandra Day O'Connor's position: White House Counsel Harriet Miers. Though not much is known about her, she seems to have conservative values. However, it is hard to say how she would lean on certain issues for sure, having never been a judge, but she could be more conservative the O'Connor was reported to have been when she was nominated. Miers appears to be assertive and tough, and President Bush seems think that she would not legislate from the bench. I suppose it is nice that Bush nominated a woman to replace a woman, although he originally nominated a man (Roberts, until he was confirmed as Chief Justice last week) to take her spot, but I really don't care of the sex or race as long as the nominee is the right person for the job. I'm sure if there is any "dirt" (as defined by the viewer) on her, we will find out from the media in short order, and see if there is much of a fight over her confirmation. Perhaps more to come...
2 Comments:
an article i read at foxnews suggested her nomination had been suggested by republicans and democrats alike. the cynic in me points out that could be because the dems are out to shoot down her nomination. sort of like dems going to the republican primary and selecting the weaker candidate. it does happen.
however, i doubt this is the case here.
Bush is repeating what he did in the selection of Cheney as VeeP, picking the picker. makes one wonder whether this wasn't his hope all along, that the dems working with her in the selection process would become enamored of her (as Bush obviously is) and suggest this to him as a reasonable choice.
what is not reasonable is that she has no judicial experience, save for her appearances in court. as far as i can tell, she has not even clerked for a judge. one imagines that the position of supreme court justice comes with an awful lot of support in the way of staff and thus the minutiae would be taken care of, leaving her to um... judge. but i could be wrong.
she is not so much a republican loyalist as a Bush loyalist. she seems particularly devoted to this president. what will come of that once she's free from his shadow? will she maintain a loyalty to his agenda beyond his term in office? it is said that Bush prizes loyalty most highly, beyond all other character traits in his minions.
in any event, it has been interesting to read the history of the high court - specifically regarding the facts you wouldn't naturally assume - such as the majority of chief justices coming from outside the high court and not internally - and that a large # of justices (35?) had no prior judicial experience prior.
but then, when you consider the fact the position is an appointed one - appointed by politicians - it makes sense that the members of the high court might in-fact be less-qualified than lower-court appointments, which are more concerned with promotion through the ranks.
whoopsie - doesn't look like Miers has been particularly aligned with conservatives. looks to me rather that she is a loyalist (particularly to texans) and has been looking to hitch her wagon to a political train for a long long time.
so the question remains: will she be a loyalist beyond Bush's current term?
and the fact she's given $$ to prominent democrats along the way would seem to explain some dems interests in seeing her on the high court.
let's remember one thing about her contributions to dems: they occurred in a time in which Gore and Bentsen could be considered "conservative" by some measure. in fact, they were both likely to the right of a handful of current republicans. perhaps Miers could make the case that the democrats left her, not the other way 'round. shades of Reagan there?
Post a Comment
<< Home