Harriet Miers’ Supreme Court nomination continues the pattern of toying with the American public that President George W. Bush began with his nomination of Justice John Roberts.
Her razor thin rsum speaks for itself – the absence of judicial experience and published legal articles or reviews portrays President Bush’s candidate as an individual devoid of perspective or opinion on key issues.
Like Roberts, Miers’ future decisions as a possible Supreme Court Justice cannot be based on her predilections because they’re obscure and ambiguous at best.
The only way that we can accurately discern Miers’ views is through her work with President Bush, who has retained her as his personal counsel for the better part of two decades.
However, this information is privileged – preventing senators and their constituents from having any information from which to assess the impact she will have on America’s future.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, entrusted with investigating Miers, needs sufficient information with which to decide whether she is the best candidate for their constituency.
Since Miers’ judgment embodies only vague descriptions, the Senate Judiciary Committee will not be able to serve their constituents if the candidate has no record to scrutinize.
The role of the Judiciary Committee has never been more important. The Roberts nomination moved too smoothly, without addressing concerns held by American people regarding his legal perspective.
The committee can assuage these fears by rejecting Miers based on the premise that her inexperience and shallow perspective do not belong on a court responsible for guiding America.
This rejection sends the message to President Bush that the public wants a nominee whose rsum is based on unbiased events, like history, not someone’s personal guarantee.
