Randy Barnett of the Volokh Conspiracy has a piece in the WSJ (Cronyism) that is, as Stephen Green likes to say, required reading. In it he cites Fed 76–indeed, was the inspiration for Solum’s quotation of the piece that I noted below.
And, he asks a very important question:
Given her lack of experience, does anyone doubt that Ms. Miers’s only qualification to be a Supreme Court justice is her close connection to the president? Would the president have ever picked her if she had not been his lawyer, his close confidante, and his adviser?
Meguesses that the answer is “no”–and that should give us all pause for thought over this nomination.
His concludig paragraph is on target:
Times like these demand a justice with a firm grasp on constitutional text, history and principles. Someone who can resist the severe pressure brought by Congress, by the executive branch, by state and local governments, and also by fellow justices to exceed the Constitution’s limits on government power. Does anything in her record suggest that Harriet Miers will be that sort of justice? We do not need to wait for Senate hearings to answer this question. What hearings will tell us, however, is whether the Senate, too, will succumb, in Hamilton’s words, to “a spirit of favoritism.”
Indeed.
Sphere: Related Content
Actually it’s kinda refreshing to see somebody get a SCOTUS appointment that didn’t spend their entire life preparing for that eventuality. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Roberts spent their life going to the right schools, getting the right clerkships, and doing the right pro bono work, and getting the right staff jobs in order to position themselves for the right moment when they may be considered. I think it’s refreshing to see someone going to the court that actually had accomplishments outside the SCOTUS track.
Comment by Buckland — Tuesday, October 4, 2024 @ 9:26 pm
In a general sense, I don’t disagree. But the point of the Fed 76 ref is the cronyism problem.
Plus, where is the evidence that she has the depth of knowledge of constitutional law that is needed for this role?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 4, 2024 @ 9:44 pm
And, what do you think is the answer to Barnett’s question? Isn’t the variable of most significance here the fact of her relationship with Bush?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 4, 2024 @ 9:46 pm
There’s a real blurry line between cronyism and knowing somebody’s good because you’ve worked with them over time. I don’t disagree that Miers would not have been nominated except for her relationship. No other president would have been in a position to pick her out and see her accomplishments. On the subject of Hamilton…He was an aide to Washington who saw a lot of potential. Hamilton would have never been heard from again had Washington retired or died before the end of the revolution. All great careers are made from a combination of preparation, execution, and luck. Harriet Miers is accomplished, very confirmable, and a woman, a threefer that the president needed. And friends in Crawford didn’t hurt either.
Comment by Buckland — Tuesday, October 4, 2024 @ 10:11 pm
The 76th Fed
Several bloggers (i.e. Poliblogger here and here, Lawrence Solum, James Joyner, and Randy Barnett of the Volokh Conspiracy in the WSJ) have noted the following text of Federalist No. 76:
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I …
Trackback by A Knight's Blog — Wednesday, October 5, 2024 @ 7:31 am
[…] ght? This strikes me as rather important. My basic views are here, and followed up here, here, here and here.
No Comments
»
No comments ye […]
Pingback by Pros and Cons » A Point of Clarification — Wednesday, October 5, 2024 @ 10:27 am
[…] 230;
Posted by: Steven Taylor @ 3:00 pm Filed under: Pros and Cons
As I noted at my place yesterday, a question that has to be addressed, and has nothing to do with ideology, paper trails […]
Pingback by Pros and Cons » One More Thing… — Wednesday, October 5, 2024 @ 3:00 pm