Miers Withdraws.
Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination. She cited the requests from several US Senators for documents that would have revealed advice she had given the President and which the White House (rightly, I believe) would not release.
This, by the way was a huge out provided for by, among others, Senator Sam Brownback who is smart enough to know that the President would not, and could not, release those documents.
I’m of a mixed mind on the withdrawal. On the one hand, I’m glad to see that Miers will not become a Supreme Court Justice. Although I do not doubt her goodness and her ability as a lawyer, I didn’t believe that she possessed the judicial philosophy required to be the kind of justice any self-respecting conservative could want on the bench. More, I believed that she would be every bit as activist a judge and make who sit there now, except that her activisim might have benefited the right more than the left. Activism from a judge, on either side, is a bad thing.
On the other hand, though, I’m not happy that there actually had to be a withdrawal. I don’t think it was good for the President or for Ms. Miers to have to go through what they’ve gone though the past few weeks. I firmly believe that both Bush and Miers are good people, with only the best motivations. They made a horrible decisions and took a lot of body-blows for it. Sure, they deserved most of the criticism they got, but they never should have been in that position in the first place.
I sincerely hope the President nominates someone better suited for the Court. I have the sneaking suspicion, though, that even if we don’t get another Miers, we won’t be getting another Scalia or Thomas, either. The President has shown that he wants someone who thinks like him on the Court and he’s nothing if not determined. I could be wrong, but I’d bet on someone similar to Miers, though with a heftier record.
Related posts:
- Reid Likes Miers, Why Not You?
- Miers Questionnaire Causes a Feinstein Meltdown
- Put it in the Bank: Miers is In.
- Bush Nominates his Bestest Laywer, Just Not Our Bestest Lawyer
Category: Political Pontifications, President George Bush
About the Author (Author Profile)
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
A Supreme Court nominee does not have to be a judge or a constitutional scholar. Ms. Miers's problem was not that she lacked those lines on her résumé. These jobs demand candidates with a legal background, preferably a solid grounding in constitutional law, but also people who can hold their own in the court's internal debates, formulate strong and well-drawn arguments, and build majorities on court decisions. A good nominee would understand the court's role in protecting rights and have a judicial approach within the broad mainstream on issues like the balance of federal and state powers, civil liberties, and the role of government – and be capable of filling out the Senate's questionnaire without a do-over.
A Supreme Court justice should have an open mind and a capacity to grow. Far-right Republicans live in such fear of this notion that they were not soothed by the White House's inappropriate harping on Ms. Miers's evangelical Christian faith, or Mr. Bush's peculiar assurance that she would never change her mind, not even over decades.
Actually, Dansing, you're exactly wrong. SCOTUS judges do not have to have the "capacity to grow" insofar as the document they "defend" does not grow, except in specific and proscribed ways.
Additionall, judges have no obligation to approach any sort of mainstream. That's what voting is for.