As far as we can tell, Harriet Miers never has supervised horse-show judges.
That, of course, was one of Michael Brown’s claims to fame before President Bush put him charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA’s fumbles in the wake of Hurricane Katrina cost Brown his job and raised charges of chronic cronyism in the Bush administration.
As White House counsel, former deputy chief of staff and Bush’s former personal attorney, Miers is definitely a Bush insider and loyalist. But unlike Brown, Miers’ background and professional experience are pertinent for the position to which Bush nominated her on Monday: associate justice of the Supreme Court, replacing Sandra Day O’Connor.
In addition to spending the past year as the chief White House lawyer, Miers has had a distinguished and pioneering career in private practice, succeeding in a male-dominated field and becoming the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association in 1992. Like the pragmatic O’Connor, she also has a background in politics, having served a term on the Dallas City Council.
She never has been a judge, however. That’s hardly a disqualifier – other justices have had no previous judicial experience, most recently the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. But it limits the paper trail the Senate can use to weigh her nomination, making all the more important any speeches or personal writings that may shed light on her judicial philosophy and position on issues.
The choice of Miers has important points in its favor. First, the president was right to nominate a woman to replace O’Connor, the high court’s first female justice. Additionally, it appears that Bush is trying to avoid a controversial and potentially bruising confirmation fight. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts last month, reportedly told the president that Miers would be an acceptable nominee.
And Reid clearly isn’t put off by Miers’ lack of bench experience, saying Monday, “The Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the court.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee’s review must be a thorough one, and the nominee and the White House should be open and forthcoming with requests for information. Likewise, opponents of this nomination must bring more than sound-bite charges of cronyism or extremism to the table if they’re to be taken seriously.
A reasoned, respectful confirmation process is what this position, and this nominee, deserve.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
