ConfirmThem

By Carol Platt Liebau Posted in Analysis and Predictions — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

If there was one important message resulting from the President's morning press conference, it was this: Harriet Miers is no David Souter. President Bush seemed to emphasize two points: (1) He knows her view of the proper role of the judiciary; and (2) She won't change. Certainly, it's hard to take such assurances on faith, but the President seemed sure, and -- give his record on judicial nominees -- I have no reason to doubt him now.

Is Harriet Miers the most qualified nominee? No -- but, frankly, no one lets that bother them when they know and like a particular nominee's views. Any nominee who doesn't come from the John-Robertsian Ivy League Law School/Supreme Court clerkship/academia or D.C. insider axis is subject to such criticism (chief example? Clarence Thomas, although Sandra Day O'Connor faced it, too.) But let's not kid ourselves -- as a prominent practicing lawyer and White House counsel, she's clearly qualified to sit on the Court.

The argument that a nominee can't have a judicial philosophy unless she (or he) has already been sitting on the bench or in a classroom simply lacks merit. Judicial philosophy is a function of intellect and/or conviction -- not judicial or academic "experience." After all, David Souter was a judge (NH state court and the First Circuit), but that didn't mean he had a philosophy (at least until lefty Justice William Brennan got done with him). And if President Hillary Clinton named David Boies or Janet Reno to the bench, we'd be pretty confident that they'd be bringing a consistent (and unfortunate) philosophy with them.

And perhaps there's merit to the argument that the Supreme Court shouldn't be entirely filled with those who have been breathing only the rarified air of either academia or the judiciary.

Did I hope for Judge Michael Luttig or Judge Michael McConnell or Judge Edith Jones? Of course. Am I disappointed? Well, isn't (almost) every conservative? But in any case, it ill becomes conservatives to ape the condescending, elitist attitudes of liberals -- wherein Ivy League credentials and government experience become the only relevant markers of intellect and achievement.

Let's let liberals be the Adlai Stevenson-types of the world.