October 04, 2005

ShouldnÂ’t She Already Have This?

Arlen Specter inadvertently summed up a part of my problem with Harriet Miers.

When asked about a timetable for hearings, Mr. Specter suggested that it would in part be up to Ms. Miers, who will have to study "so that she would have the grasp of these very complex decisions."

The Supreme Court is not a place for someone to learn on the job. If she lacks a grasp of Supreme Court jurisprudence, I would have to argue that she is not particularly qualified for the job of Supreme Court justice.

After all, would you want your doctor to have to study up on anatomy before your surgery?

UPDATE: This story popped into my head yesterday as I considered the Miers nomination.

It is reminiscent of the 1970 nomination hearings for Nixon's nominee Judge G. Harold Carswell. Sen. Roman Hruska (R-Nebraska), defended Carswell against the charge that he was "mediocre," declaring "Even if [Judge Carswell] is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they -- a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there."

Has Arlen Specter supplied us with the “Hruska Moment” of this nomination battle?

Posted by: Greg at 03:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I think some folks are being unduly harsh on the point of ms. Miers' academic qualifications. The Supreme Courts job is simply to interpert constitution. Its a small document and is written very clearly. What is required by a judge should be common sense, reading comphension, and a true respect for that document.

Posted by: Liberty at Wed Oct 5 00:23:40 2005 (YrBbd)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
5kb generated in CPU 0.0035, elapsed 0.0105 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0078 seconds, 30 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]