If nothing else, it can be said that Harriet Miers has the power to unite our country. Republicans and Democrats alike are outspoken about their dislike for President Bush’s most recent Supreme Court nominee.
Political officials on every side of the spectrum agree that Harriet Miers’ nomination is completely unfounded, considering her lack of judicial experience. Although she graduated from Southern Methodist University School of Law, Miers has never concentrated on the field of constitutional law. Miers has worked as an attorney for years, but has no “paper trail” predicting what role she will play as an associate justice of the United States, especially when ruling on social issues.
Miers is, however, a member of Bush’s Texas running club.
With no track record of previous judicial decisions, it is impossible to know how Miers will influence future Supreme Court votes. Republicans fear that Miers will not be conservative enough, while Democrats fear just the opposite – that Miers and Bush have already set up an agenda to overturn Roe v. Wade.
But all affiliation aside, the key fact remains that unqualified citizens should not be in charge of our nation. Didn’t Bush recently learn that a commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association cannot handle the duties of FEMA? Miers is another frightening example of this administration’s tendency to reward loyalty and friendship rather than knowledge and experience. Bush and Miers have a kinship spanning more than 10 years, but the President cannot expect to justify political appointees with his own positive personal experiences.
Filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court is not a job that should be taken lightly, because the U.S. Constitution is a delicate article: One person’s interpretation of one single word in the document can have severe ramifications for an entire nation.
At this juncture, it appears questionable whether Miers will continue on as a nominee. Should Bush give in to the demands of conservatives and become responsible once more for nominating a justice, the president must take into consideration the attitude of political leaders nationwide.
Bush should not provide a nominee who will clearly espouse a narrow political viewpoint. In fact, we hope he would name a candidate who, through a proven judicial record, will review each case based on its individual merits.
Foremost, he should not attempt to fabricate this sense of judicial objectivity by simply nominating someone without a record.
Bush may know Miers well, but the rest of the country does not, and there are no empirical judicial decisions to give any idea of how the United States might change under her influence. It shouldn’t be a surprise that almost everyone involved in the nominating and appointing process is feeling a bit squeamish about Harriet Miers.
A system of nomination based on personal camaraderie is unjust and highly inappropriate in decisions involving the U.S. Supreme Court. And if Bush can’t convince even his own conservative base that Miers is a good choice, she probably isn’t.