After
several days off for travel and business, boy am I rejoining the blogosphere on
a hot topic day! Between weekend leaks
concerning the growing White House connection to Plamegate and this morning’s
Supreme Court nomination, the chat rooms are jumping. While the Plame story deserves a great deal
of attention – and will no doubt receive due verbiage here at a future date - today
I would like to take a moment to express my initial views on the Miers
nomination.
The
nomination is not very popular – and for good reason. It doesn’t take partisan posturing to find
reason to question this choice – and thus the less than giddy reactions from
the Right, as well as the Left. Harriet
Miers has no judicial record. A fact in
and of itself that doesn’t disqualify a person – other justices have been
nominated and accepted without sitting on a bench. However, the experience she does bring doesn’t
really support a case for SCOTUS worthiness. In fact, her history with the Texaslottery and as a city councilwoman are reminiscent of the grossly unqualified
characteristics of the former FEMA head’s
saddle bred horsing days.
But aside
from not having a judicial record and lacking experience – both significant reasons
for alarm. My biggest bone of contention
is the “thanks pal” mentality that this appointment is dripping with. Much has been said to note the cronyism
evident in the choice. But the problems
go beyond simple paybacks for loyalty. An appointment such as this, of a close personal friend and long-time
legal hack to a supposedly separate branch of government, to me, shakes the
very foundations of our federal system.
The
judiciary is supposed to be independent of the legislative or executive
branches. When judges are appointed to
the Supreme Court who have made a career out of supporting the sitting
president, that independence is questioned and a terribly dangerous precedent
is set. You can’t tell me that, over the
next 3 years, Miers will be able to forget her time with Bush and rule on the
law before her. After spending 5 years intricately
involved in crafting legal responses to and support for prisoner detention,
suspensions of habeas corpus and torture, etc. there is NO way Harriett Miers
can separate herself from the President enough to see not through her loyal
blinders but through the clear glasses of a legal independent when presiding
over cases on these issues. It’s just
not going to happen.
And so, if Miers is allowed to take O’Connors’
seat, then at least one justice is no longer independent. More importantly, SCOTUS’ independence is
threatened by the precedent that such buddy-buddy appointments are kosher. The ultra-right wing machine has already
gotten pretty good at buying legislative seats and the Oval Office (just as W
or Tom Delay) – with a successful Miers appointment they may well have figured
out how to buy a favorable judiciary as well.
-BG
![](http://src="http://www.one.org/media/banners/ONE_logo_treatments.gif"){kind=link}