She's no Sandra

I just don't get it.

My first impression was a definitive NO.


1. She has NO judicial experience. NONE.

From the Washington Post Dossier on Ms. Harriet Miers-

Miers received her bachelor's degree in mathematics in 1967 and JD in 1970 from Southern Methodist University. Upon graduation, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970 to 1972. In 1972, Miers became the first woman hired at Dallas's Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely.

Her stint as a judicial clerk is the ONLY reference to any judicial experience in her admittedly impressive resume. Yes, she's a top lawyer who has been very active in the American Bar Association. But I frankly wanted a judge to sit on the Supreme Court, not a lawyer who is only accustomed to presenting ONE side of the story, not evaluating both to make a fair decision.


2. She is the White House Counsel, aka Bush's lawyer.

Again from the Washington Post:

President Bush named White House counsel Harriet Miers, 60, to be associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court today

Miers, who was Bush's personal attorney in Texas, was the first woman elected president of the Texas bar association and was a partner at the Texas law firm of Locke Liddell & Sapp before coming to Washington to work in the Bush administration.......

If confirmed by the Senate, Miers would be a rare appointee with no experience as a judge at any level. Initial searches of news archives also suggested that Miers has not been an outspoken advocate for or against any particular issue.

Reaction from Democrats was noncommittal but not negative, mostly because of who she isn't (a prominent conservative judge similar to some of those on the White House short list) than who she is.

Vermont Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Miers has been a Bush loyalist and that "it is important to know whether she would enter this key post with the judicial independence necessary when the Supreme Court considers issues of interest to this administration."

It's become a game to see how long this nation will sleep while the cronies at the top mess things up even more. Some of the things this administration has gotten away with are simply ATROCIOUS and clearly unconstitutional. Now, imagine an associate justice, probably in a decisive swing-vote position, deciding cases between a longtime/former client and another party.

I think I'm being too paranoid. And I'd like to invite y'all to comment/rant/post with your own opinions. I do plan on taping most - if not all - of the Senate hearings and watching as many as evil College Applications will allow.

I am hoping that my first instincts will be proven wrong. I generally trust Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and his leadership, and he supports Miers:

In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.

Okay...

I'm slightly more hopeful on Miers after reading this by William Kristol:

I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.

Kristol is infuriatingly conservative enough that his disappointment has been one of the FEW positive "gut feelings" that I have about this nominee.

Eh, I'll wait till the hearings.