.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, October 31, 2005


Miers Nomination

Everyone could see this comming. The withdraw of the Miers nomination was not surprising. The nomination was hotly contested by both parties partially because of the lack of a paper trail. Miers, never having been a judge, was asked to take a constitutional law 'test'. This is a test in whcih it took her three times to get the answers right. It has been said that the Senete Judiciary Committee was sent back because members found her responses "inadequate and even insulting." Miers does not appear to come close to the level of constitutional expertise required of a Supreme Court justice. It is rediculous to be a nominee for the highest court to not have adequate knowledge of constitutional law. I also don't understand why the president would nominate someone who would make him look like he doesn't understand what it is the court does. It says right there in the constitution that the Supreme Court is meant to interpret the constitution. If a nominee doesn't understand the elements of the constitution such as the equal protection clause, the due process clause, commerce clause or even what the fourth and ninth amendments protect- how can we expect them to make rulings on the constitutionality of the law? We have enough problems with the way the Supreme Court decides opinions already, it will not help to have someone on the court who doesn't even understand the arguement. The only intelligent thing that came out of this mismanaged and uninformed nomination was the eventuall withdraw by Miers.

"It has been said that the Senete Judiciary Committee was sent back because members found her responses "inadequate and even insulting.""

I have a suggestion. Never take a politician's words at face value.

The questionnaire Miers submitted was available via the web. You could check it out for yourself and see if you agreed with the politicos that here answers were inadequate and insulting.

I did, quickly, review the document. My conclusion was I was hearing standard political rhetoric. The questions were routine questions, and almost entirely about her background and experience.

A fair personal reaction by a nominee might well have been to be insulted by the very questions themselves. I would prefer to be picked based upon whether my views of the constitution were consistent with a constitutional republic such as ours, and not whether I had ever argued before the Court, or ever clerked, etc.

Don't trust, and certainly verify for yourself, when you hear politicos, pundits, or reporters discuss an issue you care about. That's my advice based upon many, many instances where what I heard through the media was flat wrong, and often quite opposite what was true.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?