Is Harriet Miers Qualified?
George Will writes today that Harriet Miers is not of quality legal mind to serve on SCOTUS. He clouds this implication in colorful writing:
Prior to Rehnquist's appointment in 1972 he graduated from Stanford, served as a clerk to Robert Jackson, spent 19 years in Arizona as a lawyer where he involved himself in Republican politics before coming to Washington in 1969 to serve as an Assistant Attorney General.
How is this resume any better than Harriet Miers? In fact I would argue that Harriet Miers is more qualified than Renquist was in 1972.
How about Justice Thomas. He previously served as an attorney general in Missouri and other various government posts. He then spent less than a year on the Court of Appeals before being nominated to SCOTUS. I think Miers is more qualified than Thomas was in 1991.
Justices Who had a better resume than Miers (in terms of Judicial experience):
Ginsburg (13 years DCCA)
Kennedy (13 Years 9th Cir)
Souter (New Hampshire Sup Ct 7 years)
Breyer (14 Years 1st Cir)
Stevens (5 Years 7th Cir)
Scalia (4 Years DCCA)
OConner (4 years in Arizona Courts)
Thomas (<1 Year DCCA)
Roberts (2 years DCCA, plus years arguing before the court)
Time on the bench does not necessarily translate into conservatism. In fact it seems to have the opposite effect.
The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers' confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, asFrankly, I think Will drips with elitism and an arrogent self love that is rarely seen. However, there are plenty of others who also view Miers as perhaps unqualified (some on this website). I thought it would be a good exercise to compare Miers to a previous conservative Giant William Rehnquist:
intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest.
It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's
career.
Prior to Rehnquist's appointment in 1972 he graduated from Stanford, served as a clerk to Robert Jackson, spent 19 years in Arizona as a lawyer where he involved himself in Republican politics before coming to Washington in 1969 to serve as an Assistant Attorney General.
How is this resume any better than Harriet Miers? In fact I would argue that Harriet Miers is more qualified than Renquist was in 1972.
How about Justice Thomas. He previously served as an attorney general in Missouri and other various government posts. He then spent less than a year on the Court of Appeals before being nominated to SCOTUS. I think Miers is more qualified than Thomas was in 1991.
Justices Who had a better resume than Miers (in terms of Judicial experience):
Ginsburg (13 years DCCA)
Kennedy (13 Years 9th Cir)
Souter (New Hampshire Sup Ct 7 years)
Breyer (14 Years 1st Cir)
Stevens (5 Years 7th Cir)
Scalia (4 Years DCCA)
OConner (4 years in Arizona Courts)
Thomas (<1 Year DCCA)
Roberts (2 years DCCA, plus years arguing before the court)
Time on the bench does not necessarily translate into conservatism. In fact it seems to have the opposite effect.
posted by Sloanasaurus | 10/04/2005 11:27:00 PM
Sloanasaurus,
You write "Frankly, I think Will drips with elitism and an arrogent self love that is rarely seen." Where? Elitism, maybe, (not that there's anything wrong with that) but self-love? Is being able to turn a phrase showing self-love?
Rehnquist engaged in Republican politics. That is a much brighter indicator than if he, say, contributed to the DNC.
I have three comments.
The first is that the sharpest editorial comment so far comes from Bruce Reed, of Slate Magazine, who had this bon mot: "Who says George W. Bush can't be a uniter? Shortly after Bush nominated Miers, the left, right, and center joined in marveling at the underwhelming mediocrity of the choice."
The second observation is that the Miers nomination is rhetorically clumsy. This is because the most substantive portions of Harriet Miers' legal work, namely those in the White House Counsel's office, will all be cloaked from disclosure by Executive and Attorney-Client privileges. Senate Democrats cried loudly that Roberts was a stealth nominee, and that the White House was deliberately submerging relevant information, even after more than 100,000 documents were produced. My prediction is that this same drumbeat will become deafening as Ms. Miers makes her way to Capitol Hill with a tiny accordion file of items she may discuss. This turn of events is so annoying because the fact that Republicans must start out on defense with this nomination was avoidable.
Lastly, with the Miers choice, Bush ungraciously hoists GOP Senators on their own rhetoric. Republicans had argued, as a way of short-circuiting inquiry into issues that are ethically and politically prickly, that if a nominee is minimally qualified the Senate's Advise and Consent role should end there. That is an easy stance to take with a nominee like John Roberts, who even David Broder noted was "ridiculously well equipped," for the assignment. Arguing for minimal scrutiny on behalf less well-qualified nominees, makes GOP loyalists appear as if they have low expectations and breezy standards -- and that is just an awful position to place them in.
I think Rimpi's comments above may become reality as time passes on this nomination. Hwoever, at this point the comments are premature.
I think her hearings will tell us whether she is qualified. So far people that know her tell us so - we just don't know yet.
Further, if it becomes more apparent that Miers is a hard core "cultural conservative" from the heartland, the left will go crazy on the attack.
Through Miers, Bush has nominated Texas to be on the United States Supreme Court. Isn't this a good thing...
Post a Comment