« Predators & Prey | Main | It's a Critter! »

October 06, 2005

What's All the Hubbub, Bub?

I've been vaguely following all the uproar about the Miers nomination with a great deal of amusement. The biggest complaint seems to be ulitimately based in the fact that she was on no one's list of potential nominees. Welcome to the real world, blog pundits....where you can *gasp* occasionally be wrong. Sit down & enjoy a nice steaming cup of Get Over Yourself.

Personally, I'll withhold judgment until we know more about her. So far, one of the biggest criticisms seems to be she's not Ivy League educated....as if there are no capable legal minds among us who were not. Puh-lease. Don't be such an elitist snot.

The other big criticism seems to be that she's never been a judge. Big deal. Neither were what, about half the other Justices? In fact, I seem to remember one in particular who had neither an Ivy League type education nor judicial experience prior to his appointment, and he seemed to have done all right for himself during his Supreme Court tenure.

There is one commonality shared by both appointees however. And now there's a few pundits starting to catch on.

"Bush does not really care about conservatism or shifting the court in any direction - he only cares about war. He has a litmus test alright, but it's not "Will (s)he overturn Roe?" (as everybody assumes) but rather "Will (s)he set Jose Padilla loose?"

Give the man a button....though I don't know that I'd go so far to say that the President doesn't care about the direction of the court. I think he does, it's just that he believes the war is more important. Can't say that I disagree. If we lose the war, there's no question as to the direction the court will take. Can we say 'sharia'? Yes, but I'd really rather not.

All in all, Miers is looking like a reasonable choice so far. Not much record for the Dems to nitpick. Politically correct gender. Presumably the President knows her views well, thereby avoiding a potential Souter sandbag. (Though I still say you never absolutely know what someone will do after they get on the bench.) She seems to be agreeable to the Dems so little political capital expended. And why expend it unnecessarily just to satisfy those who want to continue to rub the Dems collective noses in their presidential election loss?

Now Miers may turn out to be one of the worst jurists to ever grace the Supreme Court....but then again maybe not. Bottom line is, confirmation hearings nonwithstanding, no one knows for sure until she actually gets there. The best the President can do is make his choice based on what information he has. Picking a Supreme Court nominee is just like most other things.

At some point, you pays your money and takes your chances.

Posted by Rita at October 6, 2005 02:55 AM

Comments

You are absolutely right. Harvard (or maybe any) Law School does not guarantee a sound intellect operated by a good and honorable person, nor is that the only place where such attributes might be cultivated.

Posted by: Kenneth at October 6, 2005 08:37 PM

You see that a lot in my profession. If you didn't go to some big time law school, or work for some hot shot law firm, some make the mistake of not taking your abilities seriously.

I'm much more interested in what she's done since law school as an indicator. Law school is not the real world. I've known too many people who were outstanding students, but failed to even pass the bar.

Posted by: Rita [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 8, 2005 06:05 AM

Read more about the Miers nomination from another Arkansas blogger at the K-Block. (URL below).

Posted by: K at October 11, 2005 08:12 AM