The current flap over whether nominee Harriet Miers is qualified to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court raises some interesting questions. Not so much about her lack of experience on the bench or the rigor of her constitutional scholarship. More about the presidential rationale for choosing yet another close personal friend for a post that may, over several decades of her tenure, change life for our children and grandchildren.
Cronyism springs eternal.
The standards for Senate confirmation of judicial nominees has abruptly changed. Just weeks ago, when now Chief Justice John Roberts faced the judicial committee, questions of his religion were off the table. His experience and scholarship marks were so outstanding, there wasn’t much point in talking about qualification. He refused to answer questions of social and cultural philosophy as might relate to cases on abortion and end of life issues. And he passed, on his merit, with votes from both sides of the political, that is, ideological aisle.
In the coming weeks, however, Miers will be asked about her religion, her social and cultural philosophy, because there isn’t much else to talk about. In defending his nomination of one with such narrow experience, the president has made some rather stunning remarks.
“I understand her judicial philosophy.”
Well, can you share that with us? And what does that mean specifically? Is there some crossover between judicial and ideological philosophy here?
“I understand her heart,” he says.
Cardiologically? Well, it’s got to be better than Cheney’s.
“I know she will not change on the court.”
Really. Other justices have changed over time, most drifting to the left. Is change not a measure of an evolving intellect. Oh, sorry. Evolution is definitely off the table. And intellect seems also to make the president uncomfortable. But having already evolved from a Catholic Democrat to an evangelical Republican, what’s to prevent Miers from shifting again, particularly after the eventual reordering of leadership at the White House? To say a person can’t change is simply to say they are rigid in their views. Or somehow beholden in their loyalties. Whatever happened to an open mind? The flexibility to make decisions based on new evidence, as it relates (in this case) to legal precedent.
Bush has proven time and time again that he values loyalty above merit. When the person in whom he has invested his trust disappoints, think Michael Brown, or becomes a political liability, think Karl Rove, the bonds of fidelity are strained or broken. With lean experience or qualification on which to fall back, what’s a president to do?
“Trust me on this one,” he says.
Why exactly should we do that, Mr. President? We know you have little knowledge of history, but think back just a few decades to when your pappy appointed Justice Souter, who veered somewhat left of expectations. So much for loyalty and knowing one’s judicial philosophy.
I see this whole debacle not so much as a struggle for ideology as just another downward step in the race to the bottom. Remember that Bush was not so much elected as installed in 2000. Rove may have endeared him to the moral values bunch, but his obvious lack of intellectual curiosity offended and frightened at least half the country. Just as they painted John Kerry as elitist, an intellectual out of touch with the common people, they made those folks feel comfortable with Dubya. Never mind his elitist upbringing, Yale education and rise to political power, all courtesy of old family ties. To middle America, he was a man of the people. Why are they surprised to learn he doesn’t feel their pain?
In the ensuing years, he’s led the charge to dumb down the populace, all the while claiming to leave no child behind. It had a ring to it, but few of us understood his intention.
The testing of children in basic skills seems valid on its face, but underfunded; it has simply strained school budgets and frustrated gifted teachers. Arts and music, and the studies that might resist the coarsening of our culture, have all but disappeared. Science is being corrupted by religious belief, just as the country desperately needs more and better scientists, to be respected and whose findings should be accurately reported. Dealing with the effects of global warming (which is not just a theory, Mr. President), bioethics and a flu pandemic on the horizon will take serious scientific knowledge and experience. The ability to find solutions comes from rigorous thought, experiment along with ethical (not religious) debate.
Just last week we were told by a Republican senator that a legal scholar of superior intellect would not reflect the “Average American.” Good grief!
Miers said Bush is the most “brilliant” person she ever met. If this is a fact, she has my condolences but not my vote. If the two represent a true meeting of the minds, then she’s poorly qualified for the Supreme Court. Supreme is the operative word here.