As some have noticed many digital 1s and 0s have been spent in discussing the Miers nomination. However, since 1s and 0s are relatively cheap I also want to voice my impression of the Miers nomination.
Despite Justin's opposition, I find myself pretty much agreeing with Xrlq. I personally am amazed at the irritation coming from the right on this nomination. Many roil at the lack of a paper trail or "demonstrated heavy constitutional thought." But although Patterico is quite opposed to the nomination he hits on something pretty important in this post. After comparing himself to Miers, and conceding that Miers credentials are stronger than his, Patterico states I don’t belong on the Supreme Court, and I never will. Now, the second part of that statement may very well be true, but that's probably more likely because Patterico's never really gotten involved with the political movers and shakers, if for example Patterico wants to end up on the Federal Courts, he'd be well advised to be involved in the campaigns of California Republican gubernatorial candidates. A lot of the "will" part is so much about being in the right place at the right time.
Either way, the first part of the statement "I don't belong on the Supreme Court," is heartily discouraging. Smart, intelligent people, like Patterico, appear to be developing an idea of the Supreme Court that is Supremely unhealthy, when we start to think of the SC members as the best and the brightest even at the law we do us all a disfavor. We risk casting idols of Men and Women of mere lawyers, a grave risk. Luttig may be very intelligent, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that Luttig is some kind of legal diety. This is the trap that so many lawyers are falling into, they want to be able to exalt the members of the Supreme Court, May it Never Be! Patterico, from my experience, would make a fine Supreme Court Justice, far more able than many who have sat, and some who currently sit on that bench. Same too with the Clam or Xrlq.
Before opposing her, give her the opportunity to demonstrate her ability at hearings, something important to remember about life, not everyone is angling for a Supreme Court nomination from the first day of law school, so some people aren't so concerned about prolific publishing or the top A schools, but that doesn't mean that these people wouldn't make great Justices, in fact, it may make them better, the individual who did not seek the position may very well be the one who remembers that they are not some great justice through all their "work." But they are one of few chosen to finally interpret the law. Just because Miers did not act like an academic while she was busy...ahem working, should not be reason to disqualify her from the Supreme Court.
I'm sorry - but you know as well as I do that it is impossible for her to demonstrate her ability at the hearings, unless she is willing to state ahead of time not only how she would vote on most of the major Constitutional issues, but why as well.
If she were to do that, it would be unprecidented and would likely draw criticism from those advocating "judicial independence" (they would claim it "sets a bad precident", etc.).
You know that will never happen. She will just throw out the usual catch phrases like "judges shouldn't legislate from the bench" or "I would set aside my personal beliefs and follow the law". These are meaningless statements since both Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia would both say something like that - yet it would mean something completely different in the end result.
There is NOTHING that she can do in the hearings that can overcome all of the doubts that President Bush has sowed with this nomination.
Posted by: Justin Levine at October 10, 2005 06:09 PM (Permalink)