Thoughts on Harriet

When asked yesterday if he thought Harriet Miers was the best qualified person for the open seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, President Bush, smirking from ear to ear, said "Yes, otherwise I would not have put her on." Really? Well, let's see...Miers is little known in the legal community, has never been seated as a judge, has provided no legal writings to speak of, and is a Bush family friend.

Ah-ha. There you go. Apparently all one needs to be "qualified" is that "sucking-up-to-the-prez'dint" schtick that got people like Michael Brown appointed to the director's seat at FEMA. And we all know how well that went.

No. This nomination doesn't sit well with me. But it's not just Miers' lack of judicial experience that bothers me. It's her lack of legal credentials overall.

There is precedent, of course, for the nomination of non-judges to the high court. I don't necessarily approve it, but with the right nominee I could be convinced. Had President Bush kept John Roberts as the nominee to the Associate Justice seat that Miers is now nominated for, I would have backed his nomination despite his having only had two years as a seated judge. His legal resume prior to his appointment to the bench was stellar, although a bit conservative. (I didn't support his nomination to Chief Justice due to his lack of bench time. But that was a whole different ball game.)

Miers is nowhere near ready for the high court. Not by a long shot.

She has no constitutional law background. Her basic experience has been as legal counsel to major corporations and as the Bush family lawyer - a job which now extends to her role as White House counsel.

Liberals and conservatives are trying their best to find out where she stands on the issues. It seems she has been on the pro-life side of the abortion debate, and on the pro-gay side of the human rights arguments.

But, you see, none of this matters. She is not the "best qualifed" person for the job. There are probably 100 conservative-leaning constitutional jurists out there who should have been asked to fill this seat (and appease both the left and the right) before Miers was even thought about.

The fact that she is a Bush family loyalist is clearly the only reason the President has sent her nomination to the U.S. Senate. That too is a reason for concern. With such strong loyalties, can Miers be counted on to interpret the law independently of the President's far-right politics? To find out that she can't, only after she is on the bench...well, that is too scary a scenario to even consider.

This President, whom Ms. Miers calls the "smartest man she knows" (come on!), has tinkered with the Constitution a bit much since taking office. First, he attempted to defile it with graffiti by writing discrimination into the document; and now, with this nomination, he is trying to place someone onto the Court who has no business interpreting it. Surely that is not what "the founding fathers had intended."

In my eyes, SCOTUS still has the black eye they sustained for interfering in the 2000 presidential contest. I am afraid that confirming Harriet Miers to be Associate Justice would blacken the other eye of jurisprudence in this country. And America doesn't need that. Not right now.

Before the Senate Judiciary Committee entertains this nomination, the President should pull Ms. Miers' name from contention. He should quit insulting the nation by placing novices in high places and then telling us, with his world famous smirk, that they are the best qualified.

Because, after all, he is hardly the best qualified for his job.