Cronyism and Harriet Miers, Our Next Supreme Court Judge?
When President Bush picked John Roberts as his choice for the Supreme Court last Summer, I wondered out loud how qualified the guy could be after being a judge for only 2 years. Apparently, that wasn’t an issue as he sailed through the confirmation hearings and is now the Chief Justice of the court.
Sadly, it appears the bar will be set no higher with the nominiation for the second open seat on the Court since Pres. Bush nominated Harriet Miers today.
Apparently, you have all the qualifications in the world for being on the Supreme Court and deciding the future of American society if you: 1.) were or are a lawyer at any point in your life 2.) come from Texas 3.) chaired the Texas Lottery Commission 4.) served as the President’s assistant 5.) are or have ever been the President’s personal counsel.
I mean seriously, we’re now appointing political cronies to the bench… I thought we shipped all of them to the really critical roles in the administration like running FEMA? She’s even taken money from a Bush election campaign for Christ’s sake!! Shouldn’t that of all things disqualify her automatically??
Is the best thing for the country right now to have a personal political buddy of the President sitting on the highest court in the land? Never mind that she’s not qualified, she’s an administration loyalist and insider. Hardly the best qualifications for the Supreme Court in my opinion.
Uncategorized | Dan Cody | 
October 3, 2005 9:13 am
; ?>/images/feed-icon-16x16.gif){kind=icon}
By Arlen, October 5, 2005 @ 7:42 am
You sound like you’re surprised political cronies are being appointed to the court. It’s nothing new. Earl Warren and William O Douglas, just to name two, were also political cronies with no prior judicial experience. Also Byron White had none. Thurgood Marshall had only four years on an appellate court. Older Court watchers will remember Felix Frankfurter, one of the better justices of the 20th century, also had no prior judicial experience. Neither did Louis Brandeis. Hugo Black had one year of police court experience before being appointed. (I always thought one of the more interesting political appointments was Harding’s appointment of former president William Howard Taft to the bench, but that’s not relevant here, because he had been a judge before running for president.)
Personally I like the idea of appointing people to the Supreme Court with no judicial experience (I haven’t examined the specific person currently appointed, but I wholeheartedly support the idea that such people can be appointed). I don’t like legal bureaucrats sitting as the final authority on law in this land; I like the idea that some of the Justices are just intelligent, reasonable people with good common sense. And history upholds that some of the best jurists in the history of the court have come from the ranks of the inexperienced. When it comes to that, John Marshall, the man who pretty much defined the role of the court, was a political crony of John Adams with absolutely no judicial experience.
And, with the current tendency to tar and feather any judge who’s ever had the misfortune of having a controversial case in his court, to malign any judge who’s ever dared to express an opinion, I think we’re going to see more and more appointees with no previous record. It’s probably the only way we’ll ever get really smart people past a congressional hearing, anymore.