An Email Exchange - on Harriet Miers

So how is President Bush's pick for the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, playing out here in flyover country? Not too well.

An email exchange between Jamo of The Jamoblog and myself:

Re: Miers for SCOTUS - What do you think?

Don't forget, Bush pretty much *had* to pick a woman for this nomination. No way around it.

A notable senator commented that many of the greatest justices this country has ever seen were not judges prior to their nomination. Granted... this "notable senator" was Hatch...

I don't know enough about her to have an opinion either way yet. I will pay close attention to the confirmation hearings.

Jamo

"Had to pick a woman"? You mean politically, right?

My question is - why? There is currently a woman on the Supreme Court (Justice Ginsburg). I think if the President nominated someone conservatives could get behind, that wouldn't be an issue. Yes, the Democrats would whine - but they will anyway, and they have been continuously since Bush was elected. It wouldn't be new.

Unlike Chief Justice Roberts, Ms. Miers has not practiced before the Supreme Court. She has no record of opinions on constitutional law.

This post at The Corner made an excellent point:

"It has EVERYTHING to do with proven experience dealing with issues of the Constitution. I would even argue that a supremely respected History or Gov't/PoliSci professor, one who specialized in constitutional studies and had written extensively on the Constitution and on Madison, etc., to great acclaim, would be more qualified for the high court than Harriet Miers is. Can Harriet Miers knowledgeably discuss the important issues raised by Saenz v Roe? What does she think of Clarence THomas' separate opinion in it concerning the applicability of privileges/immunities? Does she even have a clue? Maybe so - but we should know she has a clue already. She shouldn't be a cipher."

That's my biggest problem - she doesn't have a record to examine. There is nothing here to verify that the President has made a wise choice.

And that is the problem.

Tyler

I agree. And, yes, I think he had to pick a woman politically. It's a recurring issue, "not enough females on the bench." Personally, I'm indifferent. I believe that it's the character and ability, not
gender, that matters.

With Roberts the oft-quoted phrase was "he's absolutely perfect in every way, except he's not a woman."

Jamo

Somehow, we have to get away from that. And the only way I see to do that is ignore the whiners.

If we are really going to judge people on their merits - we need to start. I think Bush has the political capital to do that now - the people who helped get him elected are ready, willing, and able to fight that political battle. But Bush has just neutered them by picking Miers.

It appears he picked a woman solely for the sake of picking a woman. And that isn't playing well with the people who elected him President.

Tyler


The other side of the "pick people based on credentials" argument is "there are just as many women who are qualified as there are men... so he'd better pick a woman."

Lamo, but that's how it will work.

Jamo

So does this mean we need to start agitating for a Mormon on the court?

Or a Russian, or a transexual, or a Martian, or a ...

Yeah, lame. Identity politics at its worst. "I know, let's pick a ______ so all the ______ and the New York Times will be happy and like us!"

Except that won't work; it never has, and never will.

And the President has managed to annoy the people who did like him.

Tyler