First of all, I expect anyone sitting on the Supreme Court to have attended a better law school than I did. Sorry all you legal Mustangs out there, but SMU doesn't cut it.
I am also very concerned about a statement by the National Review's David Frum:
"In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met."
Obviously she needs to get out more.
I am also not comforted by the fact that wingnut groups are displeased with her. So the qualification to sit on the high court is that you are not demonstrably crazy??? What about competence? I have often said that the biggest problem with the confirmation of Clarence Thomas was not that he in all likelihood was a repugnant sexual cad, but that in all of the Coke can and adult film hoopla, the Senate forgot to look at the fact that the man was grossly unqualified to serve on the court. I hope that they do not hunt so hard for an ideologue that again they miss the incompetent.
Her lack of judicial experience is not a disqualifying condition. Many outstanding jurists have come to the court from other environs, and dreadful justices have been promoted from within. A fellow contributor (JTB) observed that some variety of experience could be good for the court. For those of you unfamiliar with the legal world, there is a "judge-professor" track, where top students at top schools make the law review, get post-graduate judicial clerkships, have a stopover at a prestigious law firm and then head off for the bench or academia. JTB's premise is that this pool of talent is not exposed to "real" law and that a court comprised solely of those breathing this rarefied air could be rather intellectually stagnant. Now mind you, we are not talking about elevating the guys with bad hair and cheap suits down at Traffic Court or that you see on late-night infomercials, but real world experience certainly can be a positive attribute.
Not this "real world" experience, however. Her career in private practice as a commercial litigator does not stand out from thousands of other competent attorneys and certainly does not say "Supreme Court." From there she moves into George Bush's political orbit as advocate and apologist, hardly distinguishing characteristics. With the unmitigated disasters of Iraq and Katrina before us, we also cannot help but notice the hideous stench of cronyism. This insider also comes from far too deep inside. First of all, she will be placed in an untenable position as many administration policies which she helped to promulgate will come before the court. In addition, her political partisanship and unabashed loyalty to the president will make it impossible for her to bring with her the balance, objectivity and judicial temperament appropriate to the high court.
of you have sat, and perhaps thought, with us!
1 comment:
There is one thing to like about her nomination: the absolute, total breakdown of order among Republicans it has brought.
All out civil war is now being fought in their ranks. The thumpers expected one of their own to get in there and gut Roe, and the badly misnamed Constitution Party wanted someone to send America back to the 18th century.
Both camps are livid at Chimpy right now, realizing 5 years too late that they've been had. He's not really a thumper, or Goldwater, or even Reagan. He's just a corrupt little banana republic dictator interested only in enriching his friends. And they know it for sure now. Watching them spit and hiss about it is the most entertaining thing I've seen in politics in a long, long time.
Post a Comment