Harriet Miers: thumbs down (for now)

I will keep an open mind through the hearings, but for now I am hopeful that the Senate will not confirm her.

As a moderate, I should probably rejoice that Bush did not nominate a fire-breathing conservative for the position. But I can't get past one undeniable fact: If any other Republican were in the White House right now, there is absolutely no chance that she would be given 5 minutes worth of consideration for a place on the highest court in the land. (Conversely, John Roberts would have been on the short list of any Republican president.) This is undeniably a "who you know" nomination.

The Supreme Court is a place for the legal profession's best and the brightest, not loyal staffers with legal backgrounds. That doesn't mean that prior experience as a judge is necessary, but I think that a prior demonstration of brillance is.

I see nothing so far in Miers' record to indicate that she is anything more than an above average lawyer who, to her credit, has worked her tail off throughout her career. Which reminds of this.

In 1970, President Nixon nominated Judge G. Harrold Carswell for the court. While he had served on the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Carswell was immediately attacked for his less-than-stellar résumé (as well as alleged anti-civil rights views). Described as a "dull graduate of the third-best law school in the state of Georgia," witnesses chided Carswell's lack of any scholarly articles or notable opinions. Pro-Carswell Sen. Roman Hruska, of Nebraska, did not help matters when he defended the nominee by declaring, "Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"

When it comes to the Supreme Court, the answer was then, and remains now, "no."

(Linked at OTB.)