« Creative Cookery | Main | Politics Test »

October 3, 2005

Harriet Miers Nominated to Supreme Court

The President has nominated Harriet Miers, currently White House Council and a Texan, to the Supreme Court. The Glittering Eye has a great roundup, with more at Wizbang here and here. Due to her job history, there is not a lot of public information on her positions, so it's hard to comment knowledgeably. Given the social-rightists' reaction, I'm guessing she's fairly moderate, in somewhat the same mould as the President. I'm OK with that, if so.

My criteria for a Supreme Court justice are these:

  • Strict constructionist
  • Wise
  • Intelligent

I don't want a conservative activist any more than I want liberal activists like Ginsburg. I want someone who will interpret the Constitution according to its plain meaning, who will understand when correct legal results lead to bad outcomes and how to deal with such cases to produce the best possible outcome consistent with the most just legal results, and who understands at more than a surface or ideological level. Is Ms. Miers such a person? No clue. But the reaction of the social conservatives is heartening. We'll have to see if the social and policy liberals also go nuts; if so, this could be a good nomination.

Now it's up to the Senate to see if they can dig out any ideological information. (Which, I might add, they'd have a better chance of doing if they started focusing on philosophy instead of particular issues.)

Posted by jeff at October 3, 2005 2:39 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/505

Comments

Well, it's not just social conservatives who are unhappy with this choice Jeff. As for any liberals going nuts, I'm not seeing it. The most they can seem to muster is the charge of cronyism. Harry Reid seems elated. Do you really believe Reid or those of his ilk would welcome, or even entertain the possibility of, a strict constuctionalist?

Frankly, I am quite apprehensive. This looks like a pick designed to avoid a confrontation. Bush seems to be going down the path of rewarding a loyalist whom he knows personally. Now that's not necessarily bad, but I'm not overly enthused about it, either.

I don't want an activist, either. I want someone who is averse to taking away freedom. I want someone who will serve to limit the scope of government power. I want someone who will be highly suspect of any use of the commerce clause to further the expansion of the State's powers. I am unconvinced that Harriet Miers is that person. I believe she is much more likely to be another O'Connor, following the political winds and her personal beliefs of what is good or bad policy as opposed to what is or is not constitutional. Hopefully, my fears will be unfounded, but I am skeptical.

Posted by: Brian Medcalf at October 3, 2005 6:46 PM

And that would be bad. As I said, I hope the Senate is capable of actually bringing that out. (Not that I have much faith in the Senate.)

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 3, 2005 11:22 PM