Justice at the Hands of Politics

Let me say, first, that I am a Republican (for lack of a better word). I am also a supporter of President Bush. What I am NOT is in favor of this "political" appointment that the President is suggesting for the US Supreme Court.

Ms. Miers may very well be an excellent lawyer. She may very well be a conservative, evangelical Christian. What she is NOT is a person with any judicial experience.

I am not an attorney, but I suspect that being a judge is quite different and perhaps requires different skill sets from a defense attorney or a prosecutor. A judge cannot be predisposed in one direction or another and Ms. Miers, as an attorney, has been an advocate for one "side" or another her entire career.

If ever there was a political appointment, this has to be among the top few. Ms. Miers is simply not qualified for the position. With her experience - and yes, it is LIMITED relative experience - she may be better suited for the attorney general's position. Regardless of her qualifications as an attorney, being a judge on any level certainly has a different list of demands. She may be the best lawyer in the world, but this alone still does not qualify her for the Supreme Court.

This type of appointment comes dangerously close to suggesting that the President is making a definitive move to "stack" the Court. Does he owe this person something? He certainly owes the country something, and this ain't it. This has the face of "cronyism" all about it, and it sets a dangerous precedent. A member of the Cabinet must be willing to "follow the leader" and be everything that president would expect him or her to be. A judicial appointment, on the other hand, means that the appointee must serve ..... the law. Nothing more and certainly nothing less. The unbiased, passion-free, prejudiced-free law.

The US Supreme Court does not speak for the president, it does not speak for the Congress, and it does not even speak for the people. The US Supreme Court speaks for, and gives voice to, the law. This requirement demands a person who has a proven track record of such advocacy.

Considering my ramblings, however, I must say this. The President does have the constitutional authority to appoint whomever he may choose. The Senate also has its own constitutional duties in considering this appointment. Now that the President has made this appointment, his dutiful and lawful nomination is still entitled to an "up" or "down" vote. With the "advise and consent" of the Senate means that the entire body must consider her nomination and then do with it what it will.

This is what the law demands, and the law must settle for nothing less.