You’ve probably heard by now that Bush has nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to fill the other vacancy on the Supreme Court. As I watched the news report this morning I suddenly spit out my bagel and cried, “Harriet who??” I haven’t a clue who this person is, but then I’m not so into politics that I pay close attention to every member of the Bush Administration. The Washington Post has her bio on their site for review and about the only thing that stands out is the fact that she has no experience as a judge under her belt.
Apparently quite a few conservatives aren’t real thrilled with Bush’s choice whereas a few liberals seem to think it might be a blessing in disguise if for no other reason than so many conservatives seem to be upset over it. Personally, I’m not sure what to make of it though I do have to agree that it smells an awful lot like the cronyism that many accuse this administration of engaging in. You’d think Bush would’ve learned his lesson after the Michael Brown fiasco, but it doesn’t look that way. Problem is if Justice Miers ends up being as incompetent as Brown was Bush won’t have the option of forcing a resignation from her.
Update: As always I find The Moderate voice to be a good source for finding out more on both sides of this issue.
Updated Update: It appears that Harriet Miers has her own blog. It truly makes for some insightful reading.*
* Not really. It’s obviously a joke blog. Though it would only be funnier if it really were her blog.
This is why I favor making Supreme Court appointments require a supermajority - say two-thirds, instead of a simple majority. Laws can be repealed at the drop of a hat. It’s different with the Supremes.
I say this not just because Bush is president - it gores everyone’s ox equally.