Over the past week since Harriet Miers was nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court I have become more and more against Bush's choice. In the beginning I was wary but I trusted his pick because after seeing how intelligent he was in selecting Roberts I figured that this next pick couldn't have been too bad. But I have been proven wrong. I am finding myself in the corner of pundits such as George Will and what appears to be a large amount of conservative lawmakers. Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court is just an all around wrong choice.
Bush Jr. is setting himself up to make the exact same mistake his father did. George Bush Sr. in his infinite wisdom decided somehow that David Souter would be a perfect conservative choice for the Supreme Court. To this day many conservatives have not forgiven him for this pick. David Souter has shown himself to be a tried and true liberal on the court. Sandra Day O'Connor (nominated by Reagan) although not a conservative at least was a true moderate, she never completely aligned herself with either side. Souter however has shown his true colors in the 15 years since he was nominated to the high court. Bush Jr. is setting himself up to create the same problem with Harriet Miers. He is nominating a woman with no prior judicial experience but with extensive experience as a lawyer. This tells us nothing about how she will act on the court, as a lawyer you work for your client's interests and opinions, not yours. I trust Bush's word but on the same token many trusted Bush Sr.'s word and look how that turned out.
I am extremely skeptical now after the news that came out today. According to transcripts from a 1989 court case (broken today on The Drudge Report) in which Harriet Miers was under oath she reported said that she would never join The Federalist Society (a conservative organization) however said she was a member of the Progressive Voters League (a liberal organization). Her reasons being that she believed The Federalist Society to be too "politically charged." However upon further questioning she said that she believed the PVL to not be a political organization and she also claimed that the NAACP was not a political organization either! It's pretty tough to make the argument that the PVL is not a political organization (this article at the University of Texas is proof enough) but to argue that the NAACP is not a political organization is absurd. Just in the view of Supreme Court nominations the NAACP launched a massive movement to block the confirmation of Robert Bork in 1987. Just last year the IRS launched an investigation into the NAACP to see if they should receive tax-exempt status as a non-profit (non-profits cannot engage in political activity) after a wave of anti-Bush activities by its president. If Harriet Miers is a member of liberal organizations and believes that many prominently liberal associated groups are not political organizations this casts serious doubt on whether she will be a true conservative constructionalist on the court.
Clearly Harriet Miers should make many conservatives skeptical and for good reason. After a very highly successful confirmation process for John Roberts Bush was in a prime position to push the court into a solidly conservative direction. However with the nomination of Harriet Miers Bush has potentially pushed the court back into the position it was in before Rehnquist's unfortunate death and O'Connor's retirement. It could even be in a worse position for conservatives. Justice O'Connor was always a true moderate on the Supreme Court, however if Miers becomes another David Souter as I fear then Bush will be replacing a moderate with a solid liberal. I believe we need solid conservative constructionalists (those of you who believe this means the end of Roe V. Wade, truly look at yourselves. Roe V. Wade will never be reversed, there would be riots in the streets of DC if that happened. But I digress, that is a whole other editorial in itself.) on the court to reverse this judicial activism that has rapidly become precedent the past years. The Supreme Court is to merely decide whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional, not whether it is right or wrong. Harriet Miers is too much of an unknown to be considered someone who will definitely hold these values close to her for the many years she is on the court. She is the wrong choice for the Supreme Court.
The Man in The Robes
I am extremely skeptical now after the news that came out today. According to transcripts from a 1989 court case (broken today on The Drudge Report) in which Harriet Miers was under oath she reported said that she would never join The Federalist Society (a conservative organization) however said she was a member of the Progressive Voters League (a liberal organization). Her reasons being that she believed The Federalist Society to be too "politically charged." However upon further questioning she said that she believed the PVL to not be a political organization and she also claimed that the NAACP was not a political organization either! It's pretty tough to make the argument that the PVL is not a political organization (this article at the University of Texas is proof enough) but to argue that the NAACP is not a political organization is absurd. Just in the view of Supreme Court nominations the NAACP launched a massive movement to block the confirmation of Robert Bork in 1987. Just last year the IRS launched an investigation into the NAACP to see if they should receive tax-exempt status as a non-profit (non-profits cannot engage in political activity) after a wave of anti-Bush activities by its president. If Harriet Miers is a member of liberal organizations and believes that many prominently liberal associated groups are not political organizations this casts serious doubt on whether she will be a true conservative constructionalist on the court.
Clearly Harriet Miers should make many conservatives skeptical and for good reason. After a very highly successful confirmation process for John Roberts Bush was in a prime position to push the court into a solidly conservative direction. However with the nomination of Harriet Miers Bush has potentially pushed the court back into the position it was in before Rehnquist's unfortunate death and O'Connor's retirement. It could even be in a worse position for conservatives. Justice O'Connor was always a true moderate on the Supreme Court, however if Miers becomes another David Souter as I fear then Bush will be replacing a moderate with a solid liberal. I believe we need solid conservative constructionalists (those of you who believe this means the end of Roe V. Wade, truly look at yourselves. Roe V. Wade will never be reversed, there would be riots in the streets of DC if that happened. But I digress, that is a whole other editorial in itself.) on the court to reverse this judicial activism that has rapidly become precedent the past years. The Supreme Court is to merely decide whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional, not whether it is right or wrong. Harriet Miers is too much of an unknown to be considered someone who will definitely hold these values close to her for the many years she is on the court. She is the wrong choice for the Supreme Court.
The Man in The Robes
