Friday, October 07, 2005
Much brouhaha has erupted over the nomination of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Miers, although a woman and a lawyer, has never been a judge. And, as far as I've been able to glean, she isn't really considered a Constitutional scholar. To my knowledge, she's never even argued a case before the Supreme Court.

Many have said and will continue to bang the drum that she isn't qualified. But just this morning I reread Article III of the Constitution and found that there are no requirements for the post of Justice. There aren't any requirements written into Article II, either, where the President is given the power to appoint justices. Of course, my research could be faulty, but I don't think it is.
What is the big deal anyway? She isn't too old. She isn't too young. Although those are both really stupid reasons to vote against her. She hasn't been a judge before. Who cares? This isn't entirely unprecedented either. In fact, this may be a good thing as it may give a fresher perspective that one who has studied the Constitution for years and knows where they stand on every issue.

A judge should judge a case on the merits and within the laws and Constitution. If you've already made up your mind, then you aren't being fair. You haven't really given a fair hearing to both sides. So I think that it is a good thing that she isn't one of the good ol' boys.

As far as the cronyism remarks go... my response is "No SHIT, Sherlock!"

What was your first freakin' clue?

This is the only chance for a President to make his legacy known, for his reach to extend beyond his term of office. You would have to be a complete moron to think that any such decision would be made capriciously or without due reflection. By very nature, a "crony" is one trusted by another. It seems to me that the President has chosen exactly what he wants. Whodathunk it?

But I suppose what really irks me is the arguments being made that she isn't "intelligent" enough. Really? According to what yardstick? And how the heck do they know such a thing? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to be fair and impartial and judge matters of law according to the Constitution and Federal Statutes. If you did, well...several current justices wouldn't have made the cut.

I don't know much about Harriet Miers. Nobody does. I'm not defending her, per se, only the fact that she be given the due deliberation that any nominee of the President would receive.

I'll even go one step further. I think it would be a fantastic idea if at least one justice wasn't even a lawyer. I'd like it to be someone unstudied on matters of law, who has a grounding in real life. That way, when matters such as Kelo come up there can be a common man's voice of reason on the court instead of a bunch of supercilious, smug, we-know-what's-best, SOBs on the court selling the property rights of average citizens down the river. Perhaps a simpler view of matters might mean less confusing rulings than "this ten commandments display is okay, but that one is not." A little dumb-it-down and keep-it-simple-stupid are sadly in great need in our nation's capitol. This could be a start.

So, let's see what we can find out about the woman before we label her dumb, old, inexperienced, and unqualified, shall we?

Jeez, Louise.
posted by Phoenix | 8:55 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home


Popular Posts:





fighting 101s