Home
Loading
  Contact Us    
Harriet Miers

Is she really such a bad choice for the Supreme Court?

by Michael H. Thomson
October 19, 2005

Bookmark and Share
Harriet Miers
 
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

Comments (6)


Post a Comment

Larry Slay from Brewton, Al. writes:
October 19, 2005
Mike, you are hitting on all eight cylinder's in this article. I am tired of your liberal friends who filter any President's Supreme Court nominee through only one issue, Roe v. Wade. What makes this one issue so important? Could it be, like the eminate domain ruling, a bad decision? Or does this go deeper? Maybe it is because the two major political parties only care about pandering to a diverse voting block ie. women. I agree with you, I like Harriet Miers. There are several reasons why I like her but the main reason is like you said, Mr's Miers goes to Washington.

Melody Vanosdol from Cleves, Ohio writes:
October 19, 2005
I agree completely Mike. I like Harriet Miers too. In fact, I think it's one of the smartest decisions Bush has made.

Thanks for all the articles. I really enjoy them.

Everett Wilson from Chetek, WI writes:
October 20, 2005
I'm with Mike Thomson on this one, and will add that I think the focus on specific issues is embarrassingly childish. A guaranteed court is no court at all, but a political stooge.



Rick Wilson from Brewton, AL writes:
October 20, 2005
Welcome back. I missed my Republican buddy! I was beginnning to get worried that you had converted to the dark side. I'll call off the special ops team.

Seriously though, I agree with you. Just as there is a place for people of the Jewish faith at the bench, so is there a place for evanelical christians. I have never read where Justice Ginsburg was asked if she were Jewish or that, if she were, that it would have any bearing on the outcome of her nomination. Have we every openly questioned the religious background of any Supreme Court nominee prior to this? I don't recall it.

I have never seen the Christian faith come under so much direct attack by our government as as been the case these past several years. It is almost as if it is trendy to attack us.

I can understand the idea behind the separation of church and state. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the supression of religious beliefs and the ability to be able to express those beliefs in a supposedly free society. Yet, supression of the christian faith is what is apparently happening.

I never read where the ACLU has gone to court to stop the practice of faith by Muslims, Jews, or Hindus. Surely they are open about there faith as well in schools or other illegal government institutions.

A non-judge on the highest court in the land. What a novel idea or is it? Rehnquist wasn't a judge either, as I recall, and he did pretty well. The problem with non-judges is that they have no previous written legal opinions on which a detractors may pounce. It is obviously aggatating the heck out of the opposition. I can hear the over-bloated Ted Kennedy's bowels humming now, much like a 747 coming in for a landing at National.

Now they want her to re-submit her answers as the first ones were inconclusive, or simply put, the opposition's way of saying they can't get her to self-incriminate herself. Clinton was good at that as well. Hasn't his name come up as a possible Supreme Court nominee?

To borrow a quote from the father on Everybody Loves Raymond, Holy crap!

Jessica James from Alabama writes:
October 20, 2005
As a republican, Mike and I disagree on MANY things. But on immigration and Harriet Miers we AGREE. That's about as likely as me voting for Senator Clinton in '08. Way to go Mike! I might win you over from the dark side after all!!

William from TX writes:
December 28, 2005
All politics aside, a judge is not a representative of the people. In your column you stated, Not being a judge, Harriet actually might be a truer representative of the people than those sitting on the court at present. A judge, whether supreme court justice or not, is responsible for interpreting the law. Part of the oath of the bench, like all other public offices, is to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. We have a wonderful bi-cameral system that is designed to represent the people.

I still think Miers would have made a good choice for justice. I guess its all water under the bench at this point.

Send Us Your Opinion
(Comments are moderated.)
Your Name:*


Your E-Mail Address:*
(Confidential. Will not be published.)


Location:


Comments:*
Note: In order to control automated spam submissions, URLs are no longer permitted in this form.



Verification:
Please type the letters you see above.

  Printer-Friendly

Bookmark and Share


RSS FEED
RSS Feed for Michael H. Thomson: RSS Feed for Michael H. Thomson
EMAIL ALERTS
Sign up to receive an e-mail notice when new articles by this author are published. Your address remains confidential, and you may cancel at any time. A confirmation email will be sent.

Your e-mail address:
po Books
Now Available!

Teachings of a Three Year Old... Turned Tyke,
by Hal Evan Caplan.

A father learns from the wisdom of his toddler.

More Information.

More by Michael H. Thomson
Morning Joe
MSNBC's recovery from Imus.
by Michael H. Thomson, 1/30/08
While We Were Sleeping...
India has emerged as an education giant.
by Michael H. Thomson, 1/2/08
Christmas Entertainment
Someone's going to say 'Ho, Ho, Ho,' and someone else is going to get a bundle of switches...
by Michael H. Thomson, 12/19/07
Don Imus Returns
Will the show be the same?
by Michael H. Thomson, 12/5/07
Independent Populist
Is Lou Dobbs anointing himself protector of the "common" people?
by Michael H. Thomson, 11/21/07
Change in the Political Air
But what kind of change will it be?
by Michael H. Thomson, 11/7/07
Made in China - revisited
When are Americans going to pay serious attention to China?
by Michael H. Thomson, 10/24/07
» Complete List (88)


RSS FEED
RSS Feed for Michael H. Thomson: RSS Feed for Michael H. Thomson

Recently Published
View Article May I Be Frank, Mr. President?
Challenging a double standard in the Oval Office
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 12/15/17
Salvator Mundi
Not the painting but the Person
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 12/7/17
When the Newsman Becomes News
Lamenting yet another fallen hero
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 12/1/17
Let's Hear It for Moms and Pops
Celebrating Small Business Saturday in a very personal way
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/22/17
An Earthquake in La La Land
Examining what's been exposed in the rubble
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/17/17
Where is God?
Reflecting on the tragedy in a little Texas town
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/10/17
An All Saints Day Tribute
Remembering those who left us
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/3/17

Get the Partial Observer's
'recently published' headlines via RSS.


RSS Feed for Recently Published PO Articles    What is RSS?
Reproduction of original material from The Partial Observer without written permission is strictly prohibited.
The opinions expressed by site contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.
Copyright ©2000-2017 partialobserver.com. All rights reserved.
Home · Site Map · Top