THE VIEW FROM PAEONIAN SPRINGS
Is she really such a bad choice for the Supreme Court?
by Michael H. Thomson
October 19, 2005
It is very difficult to be an independent voice these days. My Republican friends have accused me of being a liberal because of some of my stances towards the poor and underprivileged in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. My Democrat friends think I am too harsh because of my rigid stance towards Radical Islam and illegal immigration. Here I go again: I like Harriet Miers.
There I said it. Brand away! Harriet Miers in my opinion is someone the high court needs – someone who is not a judge. You see if you are a judge, such as recently appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, everyone knows that you have a core of knowledge that enables you to talk in "judgespeak." Harriet can't do that. In future lengthy court arguments, Harriet is going to be holding up her hand asking for clarification. Is that such a bad thing? Asking someone for clarification makes that person think through his or her answers - the operative word being think. I hope Harriet raises her hand a lot…
Not being a judge, Harriet actually might be a truer representative of the people than those sitting on the court at present. Some of the court's decisions these days – like that winner concerning the proper interpretation of imminent domain – are cold and nasty – and I truly think, not very representative of the intent of the constitution's framers. Harriet could very well lend some "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" balance to the high court.
What is so radical about naming an evangelical to the court? Our elected and appointed government is sprinkled with a diversity of political and religious viewpoints. Suppose George Bush had nominated Republican Senator Orrin Hatch or Democrat Senator Harry Reid as judges? Would the country be outraged because he appointed Mormons to the high court? The high court and the country has the maturity to weather an evangelical church lady. Get over it!
You would think the most important issue to come before a judge in this land is something that could jeopardize or strengthen Roe versus Wade. I don't think Harriet is going to make a knee jerk decision no matter what kind of issue comes before her. If anything, her gender will aid her in the contemplation of such issues instead of distract from it.
To my conservative friends who are bashing the president's decision: What's wrong in appointing a friend you trust instead of a judge you don't know?
To my liberal friends who are bashing the president's decision: Where were you when JFK made his brother Bobby the Attorney General? Probably still diapered out, I guess.
Update: Shortly after my article was published Al Neuharth, the founder of USA Today, published his own interesting perspective on the Harriet Miers nomination entitled:
With these 'friends,' Bush needs 'enemies'
Visit Mike Thomson's website Thomsontalks
About the Author:
Mike Thomson thinks Harriet is cute. He likes her smile.
This article was printed from www.partialobserver.com.
Copyright © 2018 partialobserver.com. All rights reserved.