One of the hottest topics in Washington is the US President’s pick to fill a slot vacated by Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court offering “talking heads” from both sides of the ideological spectrum an air-time bonanza. And whereas the new chief justice, John Roberts, was recently propelled from relative obscurity to the top judicial spot without a hitch, Bush’s friend and confidante Harriet Miers is facing a barrage of opposition from surprising quarters. Why is this?
As things stand now, the Supreme Court is carved down the middle with conservative judges on the one side and the same number of “liberals” on the other. The lifetime appointment now being offered to Miers is one that will swing the ideological balance and, thus, could change the direction of the court with an earth-shattering impact on the American way of life for a succession of generations.
Now given that Miers was Bush’s personal lawyer before riding in to the White House on his coattails, there have been the usual accusations of cronyism.
These have been accentuated since the president has been charged with cronyism on his earlier appointment of Michael Brown, an Arabian horse specialist, to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), ending in disastrous consequences for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
And we mustn’t forget the furor over Bush’s anointment of John Bolton, a founding member of the neocon cabal, as America’s ambassador to the United Nations when his distaste for that organization was well known, or the way that fellow neocon Paul Wolfowitz was plucked from the Pentagon’s war room to be set down atop the World Bank.
It’s clear that the president put loyalty over qualifications when it comes to handing out jobs, so no surprise here! There are bound to be skeptics concerning the president’s motives, but, ironically, most of these are staunch members of Bush’s right-wing support base.
For instance, Struassian guru William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, is vehemently opposed to the slated appointment going as far as to say Bush’s choice “will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president”.
In his column titled “Withdraw this Nominee”, Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer writes: “If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.”
Against unexpected opposition from people on his own side, Bush has defended his decision to sponsor Harriet Miers, whom he once described as “a pit bull in size 6 shoes”.
Within this cozy fan club of two, she calls him “the most brilliant man she has ever met”, while he maintains she is the most qualified person in America to be on the court.” But just how qualified is she?
Firstly, Miers has never been judge and so leaves no evidentiary paper trail as to her views on issues crucial to conservatives, such as abortion, euthanasia, the constitutional right to privacy, and gay marriage.
The president has vouched for her right-wing leanings but this isn’t enough for the dogmatic faithful, concerned that once appointed, Miers might show more liberal colors just as she did in her youth when a keen Democrat.
“I know her well enough to be able to say that she’s not going to change, that 20 years from now she’ll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today,” said Bush in Miers’ defense.
But critics have argued that not only did Miers change her political leanings from Democrat to Republican, over the years, she also changed her religion and became a Born-Again Christian. They, therefore, point out there are no guarantees she won’t flip-flop again in the future.
Gary Bauer, who held several jobs in the Reagan administration and is seen as a hard right moralist, is particularly mistrustful of the Miers’ nomination.
“Republican presidents have appointed seven of nine Supreme Court justices. Many of them had the same sort of profile (as Ms. Miers).” He said.
“We were told they were conservatives, but at the end of the day, they ended up not being, and the results is we still have a court that may force same-sex marriage on us, that may take “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and that may not overturn Roe (Roe-v-Wade).
Other critics have suggested that Miers may not be the type of intellectual heavyweight required to fill a post on the highest court in the land, and they point out that she has little experience with constitution law.
To these Bush responds by pointing out that Miers was not only the first woman to be elected president of the Texas State Bar, she was also the first to become president of a Dallas law firm.
There’s just one problem. The Dallas law firm in question is Locke, Liddel & Sapp, which according to author and journalist Joshua Frank writing on Online Journal, paid out $22 million to settle a lawsuit “alleging it aided a client in defrauding investors” in April 2000. At the time, Harriet Miers was one of the firm’s managing partners.
One thing is certain. When Miers goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a process of bipartisan vetting she is in for a rough ride. Conservatives aren’t sure she’s conservative enough and doubt her credentials, while Democrats, who also doubt her resume, are concerned she’s too close to the president and worry she has a hidden agenda.
It’s just as well the lady is known to be a tough cookie for more sensitive souls might end up feeling rejected by all sides, rather like her boss right now whose approval ratings have sunk into the 30s, leaving former sycophants, scattering like rodents, in search of dry land.
