from Ben's mom
I've been lamenting for weeks now the nomination of John Roberts to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I have no problem with Roberts, and can agree that he is a good candidate for Supreme Court Justice. But Chief Justice? Maybe a few more years on the bench could have justified picking someone from outside the current Court for this position. But as it stands, Robert's limited experience as a judge left me questioning if this was simply the President's way of avoiding another confirmation hearing for Chief. It should have been Scalia. Not that I'm opinionated or anything.
But now this? We have an appointment to the Supreme Court with absolutely no experience on the bench?
Some would say the President chose Miers because she lacked any judicial record to attack. Perhaps. But in the past, he hasn't shown any lack of guts in dealing with controversy. Others think he was tipping his hat to O'Connor's desire that a woman be nominated to replace her. Perhaps. But he certainly didn't care when he nominated John Roberts, a white male. And, if picking a woman was important, he certainly could have found a few with some judicial experience.
Unfortunately, the President has demonstrated an unprecedented interest in appointing his friends and political supporters to important positions, with or without the qualifications to justify their appointments. Most presidents do a little of this; George W. Bush does it a lot. Michael Brown's appointment certainly brought this to the forefront during the recent Hurricane Katrina crisis. Rather than learn his lesson, the President has done the same thing in the appointment of Miers. She is unquestionably loyal to the President. But the chief qualification we need in a Supreme Court Justice is unquestionable loyalty to the Constitution.
Now, we'll really get to test the integrity of the Senate. As a conservative I have criticized those Democrats that think a litmus test on abortion rights is necessary before they'll vote for confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice. Now, I am ready to watch and see if the Republicans have the courage to ask Miers what makes her qualified for this position and to vote against her confirmation if she does indeed lack credibility as a qualified candidate. I don't care what she thinks about Roe v. Wade (hey, Ruth Bader Ginsburg admits that Roe is bad law). I care that she is the best person for the job.
And I'm not the only conservative who has a lot of questions.
2 comments:
In recent history, the Chief Justice nominee is someone who comes from outside of the court and as a "first among equals" the Chief really only has the added responsibility of "administrating" the court. It's really not as important a position. Also, had Bush tapped Scalia, it would have meant that we would have three hearings raging at the same time. I think the Roberts pick and the way it was handled kept the PR message from being diffused or distracted by the additional CJ hearing of Scalia. I also think that the hearings showed (even Dems had to agree) that Roberts was qualified in his professional experience to be on the Court and to be Chief.
I agree with you on Miers not being a very good choice by Bush. Even though Rehnquist was nominated by Nixon and had no previous experience as a judge, I don't think that Miers is qualified when you compare her to other choices available to the President at the time of nomination. I think that Luttig would have been a good pick, but that the President blinked.
GW surrendered his right to even claim he is the leader of Conservatism when he gave his Katrina speech. I am happy to see that there are some principled (or opportunist) voices in the Senate (i.e. Brownback and his positioning for 2008). This is a good time for Conservatives to launch an insurgency. Because given the public policy we're getting, why should we try to maintain a Republican majority at all?
Hey Rachelle - good post. I have a lot of the same questions. Did Mike tell you what Jordan said about the Miers nomination on Saturday?
Post a Comment