|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Question for the week
|
Posted: 10/12/05 I’m confused about Harriet. As in Harriet Miers. She is President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court to replace outgoing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. By many accounts, she is a fine lawyer; by equally many accounts there is little record of how she would side on important issues. This seems to be a frustrating factor for right-wing conservatives. It could be frustrating for liberals too. Her main claim to being a Supreme Court Justice seems to be that she has worked long and hard for President Bush. So I wonder, is this a patronage job being offered? If so, it’s out of line. The Supreme Court of the United States is not a patronage position; it is a lifetime obligation. Even though any sitting President has the right to nominate his (or one day her) person of choice, it shouldn’t be on the basis of loyalty; rather it should be because of that person’s legal acumen. My personal opinion, due to time restriction based on television exposure to the situation, is that Bush should withdraw this nomination and seek someone else. I say this as a liberal, knowing that some other nominee might tilt the Roe vs. Wade controversy even further toward the right wing. But I do it in the belief that we need the best judges on the Supreme Court rather than political appointments. In other words, what we don’t need are hangers-on.
Previous entries Due to the volume of entries, Anne's Ten Minutes A Day are now categorized by date and by topics. Some essays are found under more than one topic. Otherwise, select from the categories below.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
