Bushie & Harriet
October 3, 2005
President Bush this morning named his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor—Harriet Miers, White House Counsel. Mr. Bush followed much the same pattern as with his first Supreme Court nomination, choosing a nominee with a limited judicial past, and whose past in the public eye gives little if any clue as to the candidate’s views on the various contentious issues that may face a future Associate Justice. But one thing is clear with his nomination of Ms. Miers, Mr. Bush has not given up on his primary guiding principle: to elevate his cronies to high positions in government. This in spite of the media outcry and public outrage that followed from the revelation that Michael Brown—the President’s choice for FEMA director—was appointed with no prior experience in disaster management.
On introducing his nominee, Mr. Bush provided the public and Congress with the information in the same vein as he did with now Chief Justice Roberts before her. He read a short encyclopediac biography, revealing little if anything about Ms. Miers. Mr. Bush, as with his nomination of John Roberts, volunteered little insight as to why he specifically chose Ms. Miers beyond his requirements of personal integrity and an unwillingness to “legislate from the bench”, then went on to deliver a profile of her life, including a recitation of her resume and an acknowledgement of her mother as her inspiration in her career. Once again, Mr. Bush failed to clarify why this particular candidate was fit for the highest court in the land.
Mr. Bush may appear to be seeking diversity on the court by selecting a woman, but the superficial features of his choice should not overshadow the beliefs that she may hold. Justice Clarence Thomas, though a member of the minority community himself, has a tendency to vote in line with the conservative members of the Supreme Court, and far from championing the cause of minorities, he has proven to be a hindrance. One can only hope that despite her conservative affinities, she will not conform to Justice Thomas’ model.
Although some commentators on the right have been vocally critical of the lack of a paper trail by which to determine whether or not Mr. Bush’s high court pick meets their standards, this is a red herring in the discussion, falsely leading the public to believe that perhaps Ms. Miers is not the ultra-conservative she [potentially] is. Mr. Bush has often cited Justices Scalia and Thomas as his preferred judges on the bench and such thinly veined references to his own hard right inclination should leave the public with no doubt as to Ms. Miers’ likely views.
As for Ms. Miers own statements, we were given a glimpse of her views in her short but telling set of remarks this morning. Despite her enigmatic judicial history, two themes were conspicuously revealed and were obscured amongst the usual modest civilities. One was her intention to “strictly apply the law and the Constitution”—a clearer statement by a strict constructionist of their beliefs has probably never been spoken. This leaves no doubt as to how she would vote, were she to succeed in the Senate confirmation process.
The other was the stanza on the “wisdom of… the founding fathers”, of which the statement above was the closer. She strenuously stated her conviction that the role of the courts was not to over-interpret the law, that the three branches of the federal government were isolated entities, and that the Supreme Court’s function remain in line with what the Founding Fathers had intended. All three views are consistent with those of strict constructionists and expose her views of the Court itself and how she would vote. Her comments imply that she intends to roll back the role of the Court in setting legislative precedent. Furthermore, such comments are almost paradoxical: she believes that the three branches of government should remain completely independent of one another, yet she has been nominated by a chief executive who relied on the Supreme Court’s intervention in order to get “elected” in the first place.
Ultimately, we are faced with another high court pick who embodies all of Mr. Bush’s requisite qualities: a strict constructionist, a vague judicial past to ensure a relatively comfortable nominating process, someone who the President believes possesses personal “integrity”, and someone who has served the President as a loyal friend—if not the country in any judicial capacity. Ironically, Mr. Bush’s search for an integrity-prone candidate sacrifices some of his own integrity. Appointing nominees to high level government positions because they are longtime friends, regardless of their background and suitability for the role, smacks of governmental corruption. We have already seen the results of the last failed experiment with cronyism when Michael Brown was forced to step down as head of FEMA. What will be the consequences of this latest trial?