|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
The Supreme Court: Can Anybody Apply? Barrett Kalellis Whenever I look through the classified section in the daily newspaper, or view current job openings at Monster.com or any of the other job search web sites, there are always two categories that appear without fail: primary responsibilities and qualifications. These two topics are included in every one of the thousands upon thousands of open positions that appear, regardless of industry.
Thus I am puzzled at the current opening at the U.S. Supreme Court, where there seems to be a great confusion as to both the primary responsibilities of the job, and even more so about the credentials of the job seeker.
Given the considerable backlash of criticism from the conservative base of his own party, President Bush seems to have made a major blunder as far as this candidate is concerned. By nominating Harriet Miers, Bush seems to have confused the "most" qualified person for the position with the "best" qualified.
Since Miers is clearly not the most qualified by any account, Bush assumes that, because of his long-time professional relationship with her, she would be one of the best qualified, since his instincts are telling him that her judgments on important issues would be similar to his, particularly with regard to Roe v. Wade.
In this line of reasoning, the only important thing to the president is that she cast her Supreme Court vote consistent with his conservative principles on litmus case issues. But since she has not expressed her views and opinions in any public forum, even this assumption is suspect, and there is the very real possibility that her views may change after appointment to the bench — what liberals call "growing in the job."
Story Continues Below
After Bush hit a home run with the nomination of John Roberts, how is it that his proffer of Harriet Miers came such a cropper? Is the only qualification for Supreme Court nomination simply a legal background?
Can a habitual writer of letters to the editor become a suitable candidate for a syndicated opinion column? Does the fact that I have been driving an automobile for over 44 years and do my own oil changes and brake jobs mean that I should apply for a seat on General Motors' Board of Directors?
Without clearly defined criteria for judicial nominations other than ideological leanings, presidents are rightly open to the charge of political cronyism if their selection of candidates appears restricted to those who have close ties to them. Thus any opinionated political hack with a suitable law pedigree might be nominated regardless of his or her wisdom, judgment or probity.
Editorialists and scholars have already delineated the range of issues that Supreme Court justices face. These include not only the rights of individuals and government entities decided on strictly constitutional grounds, but also cases that determine the responsibilities and burdens that American businesses must assume in their daily practices.
Although Harriet Miers apparently brings a formidable background to bear on business matters, it's far from clear that she would be in her depth in advancing constitutional thought. In fact, both David Brooks and Robert Bork have severely criticized her written public statements for having "absolutely no ability to write clearly and argue incisively," as if she were the female embodiment of Chauncey Gardiner.
If accurate, this does not bode well for a candidate who should possess superior talents in articulating conservative points of view, and convincing other justices to her way of thinking. In the end, court opinions will be handed down that have far-reaching effects on every aspect of American life and society. In split decision cases, will Republicans be satisfied with a justice who has all the earmarks of a follower instead of a leader?
With Democrats laughing up their sleeves, the Republicans are now in the unhappy position of having to decide whether to accede to the president's choice or reject the nomination on principle.
The administration's support of Miers' candidacy has been farcical, running the gamut from the "glass-ceiling" and "diversity" defense to some wag's comment that "she is a good bowler."
All of this could have been prevented if the president's vetting committee had established, like any other business, necessary and sufficient requirements for the position. It is clear that they dropped the ball on both of these criteria.
In the selection of Harriet Miers, President Bush has put forth a true stealth candidate about whom no one knows much of anything. Unfortunately, whether she is confirmed or not, she may end up dropping a bomb on both him and his party.
Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications. He may be reached at kalellis@NewsMax.com.
Editor's note:
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Harriet Miers Supreme Court Nomination
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |