A Supreme Rant
Ok, first of all, she's quite obviously a crony. She's the personal council to Bush. And can we really trust someone who has actually said that George W. Bush is "the most brilliant man [she has] ever met"? Seriously.
Secondly, it's ok that she hasn't been a judge. Some awesome Supreme Court justices hadn't seen judicial experience prior to that appointment. But what is her experience? She has no real paper trail, and while I'm as against specific litmus tests as anyone (see below), I would prefer to have some documentation of some sort regarding what she believes about basic legal principles: strict constructionism, privacy, and things of that nature. Also, I want to know that she is a brilliant legal mind, because that's what we need on the Court, regardless of dogma (yes, they may say it's apolitical, but we all know it's not). Scalia is probably a genius. He's wrong, but a genius. Miers? Again: Dubya as the brightest bulb? I think not.
Most importantly, when did it become expected/appropriate/acceptable to nominate and/or confirm a potential Supreme Court justice based on her potential ruling on one issue? And it isn't even a broad issue that encompasses a set of loosely related issues, such as the umbrellic privacy. It's abortion. It's a very specific facet of the current political discussion, and I'm thinking that the Miers fight has more to do with abortion than anything else. Just look at the headlines. Abortion is the buzz word with this nomination, threatening to topple "cronyism" in relation to this particular example of the latter. It is all anyone cares about, and while it is important to both sides, Supreme Court justices should NEVER be one-issue people. Never. For all of you happy-go-strict-constructionist conservatives out there, I have a simple question: how more purposive is it to appoint a justice on an issue that the Constitution didn't anticipate at all? What exactly in Article II justifies such a simplistic view?
And finally, what is up with Bush openly admitting that he based his decision on Miers's religious views, which happen to coincide neatly with his own? Religious tests, anyone?
Alas.
Secondly, it's ok that she hasn't been a judge. Some awesome Supreme Court justices hadn't seen judicial experience prior to that appointment. But what is her experience? She has no real paper trail, and while I'm as against specific litmus tests as anyone (see below), I would prefer to have some documentation of some sort regarding what she believes about basic legal principles: strict constructionism, privacy, and things of that nature. Also, I want to know that she is a brilliant legal mind, because that's what we need on the Court, regardless of dogma (yes, they may say it's apolitical, but we all know it's not). Scalia is probably a genius. He's wrong, but a genius. Miers? Again: Dubya as the brightest bulb? I think not.
Most importantly, when did it become expected/appropriate/acceptable to nominate and/or confirm a potential Supreme Court justice based on her potential ruling on one issue? And it isn't even a broad issue that encompasses a set of loosely related issues, such as the umbrellic privacy. It's abortion. It's a very specific facet of the current political discussion, and I'm thinking that the Miers fight has more to do with abortion than anything else. Just look at the headlines. Abortion is the buzz word with this nomination, threatening to topple "cronyism" in relation to this particular example of the latter. It is all anyone cares about, and while it is important to both sides, Supreme Court justices should NEVER be one-issue people. Never. For all of you happy-go-strict-constructionist conservatives out there, I have a simple question: how more purposive is it to appoint a justice on an issue that the Constitution didn't anticipate at all? What exactly in Article II justifies such a simplistic view?
And finally, what is up with Bush openly admitting that he based his decision on Miers's religious views, which happen to coincide neatly with his own? Religious tests, anyone?
Alas.