EDITORIAL – Harriet Miers simply not qualified for job

President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor angered… President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor angered people along the entire political spectrum.

Conservatives were upset that Miers was not an outspoken conservative. Liberals were equally frustrated, noting that Miers had left no record of how she would vote if elected to the Supreme Court. Her complete lack of experience as a judge on any level caused further aggravation.

In light of recently surfaced documents, it seems that conservatives can quiet down a bit. Miers did not leave much indication of her personal opinions, but her 1989 run for Dallas City Council has finally shed some light on her viewpoints.

Miers has come out in strong opposition to abortion, except in cases where the mother’s life is at risk. This puts her in opposition to O’Connor, who she would be replacing.

Her stance on gay rights is a bit murkier, although she indicated that she supported equal civil rights for homosexuals, Miers also supported Texas’ ban on sodomy. This ban was later overruled by the Supreme Court; O’Connor voted with the majority. Again, the two women are at odds. It is unclear how someone can purport to be for civil rights and against the right to engage in consensual sex at the same time.

Conservatives may be somewhat appeased by these documents and liberals may be somewhat more worried, but for everyone in the middle, Miers remains just as unjustifiable as ever.

Ultimately, the fact that damns Harriet Miers is not that she holds some potentially controversial opinions; it is that she has no proven track record of being able to separate these opinions from her professional life.

Bush has said that even if he doesn’t know Miers’ views on all issues, he knows what kind of person she is. He believes her to be qualified; clearly, this does not mean everyone else should too. Bush has basically asked people to go along with this nomination on blind faith; whatever role faith plays in his or anyone’s personal life, it has no business being invoked in a political matter.

Also, Miers is especially close to the president; the word cronyism has not been floating around political discussions for no reason. The Supreme Court needs to be filled not with people who are staunch supporters of a particular president or set of ideals, but of the Constitution. Miers has not proven herself to be of the latter sort.

Bush described Miers as a, “pit bull in size 6 shoes,” which nicely sums up all that is wrong with his nomination. Her petite stature or small feet do not matter; Roberts’ build or shoe size never entered the equation. Furthermore, a Supreme Court justice should not be a pit bull: a fiercely loyal, trainable dog. If anything, it should be the opposite: rational, thinking and above all, independent of outside influence.