Harriet and Clarence; Brooks and Will

Unlike Hamlet’s knowledge of Yorick, nobody outside the White House know much about Harriet Ellan Miers. Same goes for Clarence Thomas. Like Harriet , she and poor Clarence were folks of few concrete accomplishments and not much of a paper trail. At the end of Thomas’s nomination process, most people were still in the dark as to precisely what Thomas stood for. We’re beginning to find out more about Harriet Miers, but the information is contradictory and incomplete.

In any event two items stand out in both the Thomas and Miers nominations; judging and writing.

Start with judging. Clarence Thomas had only a year’s experience as a judge, prior to his elevation to the Supreme Court. Harriet Miers, on the other hand, has had no experience as a judge. But as far as judicial experience goes, a year doesn’t count for much; so for all practical Thomas and Miers are pretty much equal.

When it comes to a paper trail, Miers has the advantage over Thomas. Thomas had no paper trail, Miers does in fact of a trail, but it doesn’t give anyone much of an idea as to how she’d vote on the one question which seems to be on everyone’s mind: Roe v. Wade. But there are some indications.

Republicans (many of them) for all their blather about judicial restraint and judges not legislating from the bench, would like nothing better than having the US Supreme Court reverse Roe v. Wade. Settled precedent be damned. In other words, they are willing to overturn years of judicial precedent, just to outlaw abortion in those states where abortion would be outlawed were it not for Roe. Democrats, no matter how much lip service they give to “competence” and respect for stare decisis, are interested in retaining Roe as settle law.

Clarence Thomas, back in 1991, despite hard questioning during his nomination proceedings, declared he never thought much of Roe v. Wade. Didn’t think about it at all, he said. Had no opinions one way or the other. But Thomas quickly developed some rather concrete views about abortion when he ascended the bench. He’s been a regular opponent of Roe throughout his subsequent career.

What Harriet Miers may think about Roe today, is not known but some 17 years ago, she came out against Roe and stated (at least while a candidate for local office) that she would support some kind of amendment to the US constitution outlawing abortion. Which means basically that she’s opposed to Roe v. Wade and would, logically anyway, like to see it overturned. At least that’s the logical assumption one would make. But that was then, this is now.

News reports say that she told Sen. Arlen Specter the other day that she felt that the Griswold case, which decided that Americans have a basic right to privacy was “rightly decided.” But apparently Miers contacted the senator and said that she had been misunderstood. Which tells us precisely nothing about her views today.

All of which isn’t going down to well with the rightist yakkers and scribblers on the Sunday talk shows. It was sort of fun watching George Will and David Brooks agonize over Miers on ABC’s This Week, today.

Brooks and Will are both upset, but for slightly different reasons.

Brooks’ argument against Miers is basically political. Brooks feels that the nomination of Miers is going to push the Bush administration over the edge into full blown lame duckery. Because of Miers, Bush will become so weak, that nothing further will be done to accomplish the agenda of the far-right. George Will says that the Miers nomination is quite literally a political dead end not only for the current administration, but also for any US senator who dares to vote in favor of her confirmation. Don’t bother running for the presidency, if you are a US senator and vote for confirmation says. Will.

Brooks has another reason to dislike the Miers nomination. Brooks is of the opinion that Ms Miers cannot (so far as we know) write a coherent sentence in the English language. Which means, basically that she cannot write as well as David Brooks. Of course if that were the qualification for judicial (or even) political office, no one would occupy any judgeship or elective office anywhere. And of course writing ability is not something that most judges are known for in any case, or that they really need for their jobs.

Not only can Ms Miers not write as well as David Brooks, her understanding of Constitutional Law is not equal to that of most constitutional scholars. The same thing could probably be said of most judges. Which is why most judges have clerks to assist them in going through the briefs presented to them by the concerned parties on both sides of a legal dispute.

The fact is, there’s no constitutional qualifications for someone to be appointed to the US Supreme Court; except that the person be nominated by the president and consented to by the US Senate.

The president has confidence in Mrs Miers and that’s the only qualification she really needs.

The rest is up to the Senate.

Punditwalla--