my my miers

My My, Miers

A few days ago, I argued that it is wrongheaded to assert Ms. Miers is unqualified for an associate position on the Supreme Court. And I reckon I'll stick to the bare notion that a person is easily capable to serve and interpret the Constitution.

But, she might really be very very bad at it. I'll concede that I began feeling distressed with this potential Jurist over the week. My initial assumption was of her being a capable and thoughtful reader of public law (Constitutional and statutory interpretation and basic understanding of civic and administrative functions). I am coming to wonder whether I was wrong.

There are more worries addressed below, but one thing alone sets a red flag a'wavin'. Miers had the opportunity to sit, reflect, and respond to various questions presented by the judiciary committee. In her response, she referred to the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause as it related to the voting act...which does not exist. She meant one-person-one-vote, but got her legal theories mixed up. If this had been a verbal response, I'd be forgiving. But it was a written reply, with ample opportunity to check.

Now, had she claimed ignorance, I se less a problem. The problem is where a jurist purports to know an answer and acts on that answer, and is wrong. Very problematic- and I grimmace to think of oral arguments filled with attorneys correcting the Justice on points of law.

Lily comments below that the quality of a jurist is in the ability to frame one's decision within a coherent, legal framework. With this in mind, I am further concerned at the quality of a Justice Miers. If she is unfamiliar with Constitutional law, fine. But if she is intellectually lazy, and spurts out bogus con law theories and ges precedent wrong, she should ont serve. Mind you, I don't mean precedent wrong in my opinion...I mean, if she objectively misapplies prcedent or statutory provisions.

This is my concern- and it is abated in knowing she'l lhave clerks and other Justices to correct her mistakes. And, certainly, one can grow with the job. Indeed, this is why I don't advocate, yet, her being rejected. It is, honestly, somewhat exciting to thing of someone apparently wet behind the ears, regarding public law issues, serving and earnestly, intellectually evolving on the Court. Could be fun.