Reverse Judo Chop

The Sen Minority Leader:

“I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.

“In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.

“I look forward to the Judiciary Committee process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.”

Curiouser and curiouser.

Anyway, I agree that getting people from outside the usual career arc can be a good thing.  Institutional thinking is nice to avoid when possible, and so long as somebody has relevant experience on some tangent, I'm cool with that.  The reasons I was miffed about Roberts was that he's young and will thus be likely presiding over the Court for a very long time.  Miers has been around the block and, depending on what we learn in the confirmation hearings, seems to have more overall experience.

Shit, far be it from me to agree with Dick Cheney, but he's right: a little less than 1/3 of the last few dozen SCOTUS appointments, including Rehnquist, had not spent prior time on the bench, but did have relevant experience.  As Hubris pointed out during a recent discussion on Roberts, Chief Justice Warren also is in that category.  Again, it's the span of service that I'm interested in, and a paper trail that gives some indication about how the appointee thinks and acts.

As far as the cronyism thing goes, yes, it is rather apparent despite Cheney's protestations to Rush Limbaugh.  But hey, that really isn't without precedent.  It's only natural that an executive will select people who are personally known quantities.  While the Supreme Court is a bit different ballpark, just remember than Kennedy had his brother as AG, and we can find plenty of other similar situations throughout history, both recent and remote.

But it's up to the president and his pick to tell us why this person is appropriate.  And that's the thing that gives me pause about Miers: she is, much like Roberts, a bit of a mystery.  Unlike my Senators, I'm not really willing to make a leap of faith when we're talking about the highest court in the land.  Give me something to work with here!

Beyond that, all the "inside baseball" stuff is kinda interesting, but I'm not going to leap into the fray just yet.  Some people think picking Miers is a sign of weakness on Bush's part.  Others aren't quite sure what to make of it from a strategic or ideological POV.  I think it's just going to be a lot of fun to watch what happens.  The Roberts nomination lacked drama.  This one won't be boring!

ntodd