The Sandspur

Issue date: 10/14/05 Section: Opinions

President Bush, with the announcement of Harriet Miers as his nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Sandra Day O'Connor, has managed to do something rarely seen during his tenure as chief executive, foster bipartisanship. In this case, conservative and liberal alike, be they senator, pundit or person on the street are equally skeptical of the recent nomination to the highest court and the questions it fosters. A construct emerges in which this nomination can be thought of as nothing but cronyism and a demonstration of personal loyalty to the fault of the system at large.

What has emerged is a political climate in which Democrats don't know what to say, having no knowledge of who Ms. Miers is or what she stands for, hoping for the specter of a Souter to plague another Bush. Republicans on the other hand are furious, turning their collective back on the president and propelling him further into his second term slump as a result of what is perceived as a blown chance to build a legacy and stabilize the conservative revolution with what can be argued as one of the executive's most important and lasting contributions to the federal government.

Ms. Miers, White House Counsel, in other words, the personal attorney for the president can do nothing but foster images of cronyism. In a White House climate where loyalty is known to garner reward above all else, even competency at times, the nation's guard is instantly up when a name comes from nowhere to the top of the list for the highest court in the land. This idea of close personal connections to President Bush outweighing all other qualifications, already treading on dangerous ground, is made all the worse by the lifetime appointment that hangs in the balance. What President Bush has endeavored to do is place a dark horse, an entirely unknown and unproven individual, in the powerful position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

To add insult to injury, Ms. Miers has little if anything along the lines of qualifications. Miers has never been a judge, while it can be argued that many justices came from positions outside the jurist pool, it simply cannot be denied that attaining the position of Supreme Court Justice without the paper trail that is inherent with previous experience as a jurist establishes a dangerous precedent. This precedent allows the confirmation of a candidate without a past, without any idea of personal doctrine and legal theory. If the confirmation hearings are anything like those of Chief Justice John Roberts it will simply be another display of circular testimony that will result in a blind "up or down" vote by the Senate without the privilege of past decisions and a lifetime of writing.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools