WSJ against Meirs
Ouch - now it’s really getting bad for Bush. From The Miers Blunder:
…so far the lesson we draw from this nomination is this: Bad things happen when a President decides that “diversity,” personal loyalty and stealth are more important credentials for the Supreme Court than knowledge of the Constitution and battle-hardened experience fighting the judicial wars of the past 30 years.
(Hat Tip: Captain’s Quarters)
I guess it’s time to pile on. The initial spin from the White House was that you don’t necessarily need great judicial experience on the Supreme Court. There is no Constitutional requirement to be a lawyer. Okay, that’s true. The assumption is that a person who can bring “real world experience” to the Court is a good thing.
I can support it under the following condition: that the nominee - instead of being an extraordinary legal mind - is an extraordinary citizen. Harriet Meirs’ background, while impressive, is not so extraordinary to place her above so many others in the country. I would expect someone to be a major national business or political leader to be considered over the many qualified jurists. Head of the Texas State Bar and being a one-term city council member just doesn’t impress me much.
For me someone “from the street” would have, for example, been a school superintendant for several years, been the a mayor of a major city for a decade or created and operated a large business. That would impress me a bit more, and make me think that a person from the street with have valuable insight the other Justices might lack.
Meirs hasn’t come across as impressive and just doesn’t seem like anything other that a stealth, crony pick.
State of U.S. Courts. . .
Consider this:
Open Letter ( ed: Deleted. Interesting, but not especially relevant to anything I commented on)
Comment by Insider — October 25, 2005 @ 2:24 am