Perpetuation of Ineptitude

Our Dear Leader has nominated a replacement for Justice O'Connor.

Harriet Miers was nominated by the President this morning in a happy little Oval Office ceremony where Mr. Bush no doubt read a bullet point list of the White House Counsel's accomplishments and attributes.

Noticeably absent from that list, however, was any mention of Ms. Miers ever serving as a judge. That, of course, would be because she never was a judge and thusly lacks any judicial experience.

While it seems that she is, in fact, an excellent lawyer with an impressive career history, I can't help but wonder if our nation would be better served by someone who actually knows what it's like to be a judge. I have no doubt that Ms. Miers would make a competent adjudicator, but it seems like she shouldn't be getting her feet wet on highest court in the land.

What experience does she have with the Supreme Court, anyway? I'd be less critical if she had been Attorney General or Solicitor General, or even if she had worked in the Solicitor General's office at some point in her career, because then, at least, I'd know that she would have had some first hand familiarity with the Court and it's process. But I can't find anything to that end.

I've read several biographical articles about Ms. Miers this morning and all they've been telling me is that 1) she was the President's personal attorney at some point in his life, 2) she had most recently been serving as White House Counsel, 3) she was first woman to do a bunch of things - hired by her law firm, be president of her law firm, head the Texas Bar Association, etc.), and 4) she's somewhat quiet normally, but quite feisty in court. It can also be inferred that she's quiet conservative since Mr. Bush nominated her, but the mainstream media would never out-right harp on that.

Now, there are no strictly established qualifications in place to sit on the Supreme Court; the Constitution barely establishes qualifications for the President, though I suppose it's arguable which position is more important. As a point of fact, many Justices throughout the Court's history have lacked judicial experience. I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that some weren't even lawyers. But here's the thing: that was a different time. For one thing, shit like that went down when it was still mildly difficult to find adults that could read and write, abilities that are apparently key to fulfilling the office. These Justices were also appointed in a time where the Senate didn't really make any effort to evaluate the President's nomination. Up until about 50 years ago, the Senate, in a perceived courtesy to the Chief Executive, simply trusted that he would nominate someone worthy of the job and basically just rubber stamped the confirmations. Even today, nominees are actually required to show up and be questioned at these nomination hearings. That's all political fluff to help the images of all involved.

No, no, no. My problem here, aside from the fact that I'm not keen on conservatives running the country (in fact, if I was any further left, I'd fall off the wing), is that President Bush nominated Ms. Miers, an individual with no judicial experience, in a time when another one of his nominees, also with no experience, failed so miserably at his job that people actually died as a result. Though I'm sure I'd still be critical of her, were it not for Michael Brown, I'd at least have some confidence in that fact that while Ms. Miers has never actually been a judge, at least she was picked because some smart people thought she could do the job.

My fear now is that there aren't actually any smart people giving the President advice; just lucky ones. Well, lucky until Brownie, anyway.

Click here for the list of related stories from Google News.