The Informationist

Who is Harriet Miers?

Granted, it’s not exactly “Who is John Galt?” but it is topical.

Harriet Miers is George Bush’s friend, and as of this morning, his nominee to replace Sandra Day O’Connor as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. So far, that’s about all that I know about her. My quick perusal of the web hasn’t been terribly helpful. As far as I can tell, that’s about all that anyone knows about her.

But I do have two thoughts.

The first is that when Bush nominated John Roberts, I was pleasantly surprised. It looked to me as if this most political, most partisan of Presidents had gone out of his way to reach out. Not to reach out to Democrats (God forbid), but rather to reach out to the American public. I saw, and see, the Roberts nomination as a drive to promote trust in our vital institutions. Bush knew that had he nominated a judge capable of securing only a bear minimum of 51 (or even 55) votes, he would win the court and lose the public. Too many Americans would distrust a partisan court as extremist. The Roberts choice struck me as a clear attempt to garner 80 votes. It fell two shy, but the effect was the same. The Roberts court began its first session today with the trust of the American people. I don’t know if Miers will prove to be as successful a choice, but I do think she follows the same pattern. I believe that Bush chose her in order to maintain public trust in the vital institution of the Supreme Court.

The second has to do with the Justice that Miers has been nominated to replace. From a political perspective, Sandra Day O’Connor played an important role. She was (and is) decidedly nonideological, and was often the swing vote on the court. Many people have expressed this view. But what they seem reluctant to say is that her much vaunted moderation arose largely because she was not good at her job. O’Connor’s swing vote oten adopted the reasoning of four of her colleagues to reach the conclusion that her other four colleagues preferred. As a result, it is almost impossible to know what the law is, and virtually every issue on which she ruled remains subject to relitigation. O’Connor was the ultimate punter. On her watch, nothing left the court clearer than it was when she approached it. Her opinions typically exhibit muddled thinking and weak jurisprudence. While I certainly hope that Miers will not approach the court with ideological baggage that I consider dangerous, I also hope that she is capable of clear thinking and clear writing. We deserve to know what the law is. I hope that, in time, Miers (or, if she is not confirmed, whoever assumes O’Connors seat) will be better at this critical job than O’Connor was. That bar is not a particularly high one.

Posted by Bruce Abramson from on 10/03 at 01:58 PM in American Government, Politics, and Domestic Policies