In the face of inevitable confirmation, I concluded that the only course of action with Justice Roberts was basically to suck it up and hope for the best. Prior to nomination, Roberts had an excellent record on the Constitution. He had clearly devoted his professional life, and much effort at scholarship, to understanding the nuance that is the hallmark of cases that touch or concern issues involving the constitution.
Roberts also had some troubling issues in his past. Cases where he should have disclosed and discussed his role were known, but not discussed by the Senate or by then-Judge Roberts. At least Roberts showed the ability to take in new ideas and new information, as his record indicates as a strong possibility.
Now we have Counsel to the President, White House operative Miers nominated. I have more than sufficient experience with her type, based upon her known resume, to start looking for a legal fallout shelter, and to advise the rest of the country to join me in the bunker.
I've worked in and with large law firms. Anyone who is in the upper tier of the business side of the firm must devote much time to the firm business. Unless their specialty is constitutional law, it is the rare managing partner that has the ability to truly study constitutional implications of certain courses of business or litigation.
But, never mind. W assures us that Ms. Miers is a good person. Well, if that's the criteria, I am a good person, have twenty-five years in the practice of law, have run my own law firm, worked on appeals and litigation, conducted numerous First Amendment cases, and, (trumpets please) I am singularly unqualified to sit on the Supremes.
The religious right is barking that Miers should be confirmed because she is a "born again", just like them. She is a good person, with her faith well worn on her sleeve. That is not good enough. I have a feeling that any board of bar examiners looks not to religious faith but to legal acumen prior to awarding a license to practice law. That was the rule when I got licensed.
The test for any judge, from traffic court to the Supremes, requires constitutional scholarship. The fact that misdemeanor courts are flooded with political cronies matters not. The effect is the same for a small criminal matter or a homicide when you ask any defendant. The courts deal with matters that affect rights. Rights are constitutional matters. Religion is not a marker on the path to constitutional scholarship or judicial greatness.
When judges are political appointees, selected by people that do not appreciate the role of bedrock rights, we end up with the unqualified leading the uninterested down the path of least resistance. And the single issue of the current cult of personality in the Bush White House is singular.
The "I'velookedintotheheartof......" statement is really a focused single word these days. It is the ultimate litmus test we are asked to believe in. It is one-eyed sight. No depth of field is needed, thank you very much.
To top it off, the Cyclops running the show also believes the one-eyed vision should not be distracted by the facts or record. Just wait, the stonewalling that we had on Roberts was merely a footpath compared to the Chinese Wall we are about to see with Miers. Good thing, they think, that the top of the wall is wide, with high parapets. The better to lob bomblets at the hordes demanding information they will never see. And Miers was pivotal in the Roberts stonewalling.
The whole strategy of this administration is built on the false premise that a democratic republic does not require its citizenry be well informed. We, the people that pay the taxes, work in the jobs, make the wheels of commerce turn, do not deserve to make an informed decision. If doctors gave us this kind of option for informed consent, there would never be another surgery performed in this country. We wouldn't even let a doctor remove a wart with the singular lack of knowledge imparted by the non-Olympian God-wannabees in BushCo.
The "trust me" basis for decisions doesn't cut it. It has never been good enough for this country. W wants us to place our trust in the continuation of the power of the Bill of Rights with only his fatherly prattle. What happened the last time we bought his word, as a country. Think March, 2003.
We aren't buying it. We want information. And if Ms. Miers should change with the passage of time, we deserve to know that too. After all, she has changed in the last 20 years. Just don't treat us like suckers. Don't sell us a Supreme Court nominee based on tactics that may work for breakfast cereal, but will never allow a fair and reasoned evaluation of someone who has spent decades in the practice of law.
The point is, we need full disclosure of her record and legal work. Redact away, but give us the memos, briefs, letters and everything else. After all, now that the president has opened the door, the evidence must come in to support the nominee. If the stone wall is erected around this nominee, there is no advise and consent possible. The constitutional duty encumbent upon the Senate and White House will have been abdicated. And then, heaven help us all.