Miers’ friendship doesn’t qualify her for court seat

President George W. Bush’s Oct. 3 nomination of Harriet Miers for Associate Justice of the… President George W. Bush’s Oct. 3 nomination of Harriet Miers for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court has left liberals and conservatives in a quandary. Several questions have come up that focus mainly on her lack of credentials and personal proximity to the president.

Miers’ history is not particularly exceptional, especially considering her status as a Supreme Court nominee. She received her law degree in 1970 at Southern Methodist University, where she studied alongside Laura Bush. Miers practiced commercial law for most of her career at Locke, Liddell ‘ Sapp, but has little experience with constitutional interpretation.

The fact that Miers is a Bush crony is too blatant to be overlooked. She has known the now-president since the ’80s and the two are very close. Miers has been part of Bush’s legal council since his 1994 gubernatorial bid. She was Bush’s personal attorney for years and now she is being rewarded with a Supreme Court seat for her loyalty. The whole situation reeks of cronyism.

Notice also that Miers was head of Bush’s committee to search out potential judicial nominees. In the president’s 2000 campaign, he similarly selected the head of his vice-presidential nominee committee as his running mate – Dick Cheney.

Miss Miers makes her partiality to President Bush quite clear. She has previously said to David Frum – author of the famous “axis of evil” speech – that President Bush is the most intelligent man she knows. If this is true, the president must be the only man she has ever met.

Putting a lifelong friend in a position of power is political insurance for President Bush. He is staking power for himself so that in the future he may continue to have influence over national affairs long after his term is over. This practice of power grabbing is corrupt and should be stopped. It is the reason why measures like the 22nd Amendment were enacted.

Comparatively, Judge John Roberts was an infinitely better choice for the Supreme Court. Roberts had relatively few personal ties to Bush, but an impressive resume. Arguably, Roberts’ case is similar to Miers’ in that Roberts has had only two years of experience as a judge. But consider that Roberts has something qualitatively substantial in his case that accounts for his lack of experience. He was a scholar and intellectual: magna cum lade from Harvard Law School and former editor of Harvard Law Review. Roberts was even a clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist – valuable experience for the apprentice.

The criteria for choosing a Supreme Court Justice are not well defined. Certainly, though, becoming one does not merely involve meeting a few minimum requirements. A strong candidate is one who is the best of her kind.

It is not so much that Miers is unqualified. To the contrary – she has certain qualities that would make her a suitable justice under different circumstances. Miers is simply not qualified enough. The powers and responsibility that come with the post should be reserved for only the most qualified individuals. I can say without a doubt that there are others more competent that would gladly take the job.

Miers is a woman – so what? Her female status alone does not qualify her for the position. There should be no pressure to replace a woman with another woman for fear of appearing sexist. Did Bush think Democrats wouldn’t pass his nomination unless it was preservative of gender?

It seems that the president has solved the problem of critical judicial analysis by choosing a candidate that has no paper trail to follow. Miers has never been a judge, so her opinions about important issues like abortion and gay marriage are ambiguous. Based on her career of defending corporations like Microsoft and Disney, it seems like she may favor big business – an ideology I am not pleased to see.

Arguably, one can draw a parallel to other underqualified justices. Justice Rehnquist, among others, were not judges prior to their appointments. To use these examples as justification for the practice of nominating inexperienced judges is foolish. Take, for example, Mike Brown of the Federal Emergency Management Agency infamy. His lack of experience with disaster recovery prior to Hurricane Katrina did not allow him to do an effective job.

Harriet Miers and Mike Brown are not isolated incidents. Time Magazine recently published an article called “How Many More Mike Browns Are Out There?” in which the author cited numerous other cronies that were quietly slipped into Bush’s current administration.

Without awareness, this phenomenon of putting unqualified friends into high positions of power can only get worse. I have faith that the legislative branch has realized Bush’s harebrained plan and that Miers will ultimately not get her court seat.

E-mail Karim at kab85@pitt.edu to talk politics.