President Bush has nominated Harriet Miers, a longtime friend and confidante, to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court. See here. Miers wasn't on my radar screen, and I don't know much about her, but I'm keeping an open mind. She appears to have had a successful career as a practicing attorney. She has never been a judge, although it's not unprecedented for a judicially inexperienced attorney to be named to the Court. (Neither Earl Warren nor William Rehnquist, both of whom served as chief justice, had judicial experience upon being nominated.) Many conservatives are freaking out over the Miers nomination. See here. I would urge them to settle down. Yes, there's a lot at stake, but let's not leap to conclusions. So far, I have seen nothing that troubles me about the nominee, except her age (60). President Bush should have nominated someone much younger. I do like the fact that Miers is a native Texan.
Addendum: Michelle Malkin is collecting links. See here. The reaction among conservatives is almost universally negative. I don't understand why. Some say they don't trust President Bush. Why not? He knows Miers well. He knows what kind of justice she will be. I also think there's some snobbishness involved. Miers is not an Ivy Leaguer, like John Roberts. She didn't clerk for a Supreme Court justice. She hasn't been a law professor. So what. She brings something just as important to the Court, namely, real-world legal experience. She's a practitioner, not a professor or a theorist. Law professors, especially those who have never practiced, tend to take an external view of the law, which inclines them to manipulate it. Practicing attorneys take an internal view of the law, which inclines them to respect it. As for this nomination being a case of cronyism, who cares? President Bush knows and trusts Harriet Miers. Should he have nominated someone he doesn't know or trust?
Addendum 2: These people are acting like snobs, which will only confirm the leftist belief that conservatives are elitists. One contributor is appalled that President Bush didn't nominate a blueblood. Please. We just got that with John Roberts. Do we want a cookie-cutter Court? Justice Miers will bring common sense, real-world experience, and judicial craftsmanship, rather than high theory, to the Court. I have seen nothing in her record that concerns me. Nothing.
Addendum 3: It occurs to me that many conservatives, especially those with academic credentials, have bought into the Dworkinian idea that the Supreme Court is made up of Herculean philosopher-kings whose task is to make the law the best it can be by some external moral standard. I reject this conception of judging, as should any right-thinking person. The law is not a plaything, to be manipulated by ideologues. It has a life, a logic, and an integrity of its own that must be respected.
Addendum 4: University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein weighs in on the nomination here.
Addendum 5: I'm pleased to see that not all conservatives are freaking out over the Miers nomination. See here.
Dead on, excellent observation. The CONGRESS should be making the laws. Where the hell are they? The CONGRESS has for 50+ years been letting the SCOTUS and the President assume more and more power. These ladies and gentlemen need to get off their collective hired butts and start to fullfilling the role to which they were hired. Yes, hired. They can also be fired, and they should never forget this fact.
Bush's nomination is a great choice. From all appearances he has picked another stealth candidate, which leaves the Democrats in a bad position. However, there are three positive reason why Ms. Miers is a good choice. First, she is politically acceptable to the Senate. Second, she is a good diversity choice. Finally, if she is a strict constructionist, Bush has created core group that will last a shape the court for a long time.
From his introduction of Ms. Miers, he's obviously hashed out a candidate acceptable to at least 80 Senators. This means that Bush has already laid the groundwork for a successful confirmation in the Senate. She just has to stand up to the Judicial Committee.
She is a good example of a "diversity" choice. Obviously, she is a woman replacing a female justice. She is not a judge, but has a very strong background in law. She has a strong business and civil law background, which, if I'm to believe what I've read, is something that is lacking in the current court.
If she does wind up being a strict constructionist then that will mean the three youngest judges on the Court are all of the same mindset. She is still older that Thomas and Roberts though. But all three could serve on the Court for at least 20 years or more. Look at the ages of the current members of the Court to see what I mean.
Age of the Justices at Wikepedia
Will