Bush appoints judicial virgin Harriet Miers to U.S. Supreme Court

When Bush nominated the supremely qualified and inimitably reasonable Judge John Roberts to replace William Rehnquist as the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, he took the bite out of his Democratic adversaries who were frothing for a dogged political fight.

And now his nomination of the well-qualified and temperamentally immaculate Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor as an Associate Justice has effectively defanged the Democrats yet again. After all, Miers is a confirmed spinster who seems to have been married to the law all of her adult life (as an effective litigator though, like Rehnquist when he was nominated, never as a Judge). Moreover, given that she has been his trusted counsel since his tenure as governor of Texas, Bush clearly feels confident that Miers will help execute his vision of jurisprudence in America for years to come. (And besides, only a rabid yellow dog would salivate for a partisan piece of the matronly Mrs Miers…down Teddy!)

But even Bush’s most ardent critics – on the far-right and far-left – must concede that this is a nomination worthy of King Solomon. Because Bush seems to have split the partisan requirements for this pivotal judicial appointment right down the middle: To appease liberal Democrats, he nominated a woman but not a polarizing one like Judge Janet Rogers Brown; and to appease conservative Republicans, he nominated a woman who was a trailblazer in trying to get the influential American Bar Association (ABA) to adopt a more neutral stance on abortion. And, only confirming the wisdom of his nomination, both Democrats and Republicans are expressing political anxieties – in equal measure – about how Miers will rule as a Supreme Court Justice.

But for anyone whose politics are emotionally tied to single issues like abortion or gay rights, here’s what you can expect from Harriet Miers, John Roberts and this new court: They will not overturn a woman’s right to choose an abortion; and, they will not recognize any rights for gays beyond those granted by each state.

What is most interesting about the Miers nomination, however, is its political implication. Because it clearly vindicates those of us who have argued that, notwithstanding his rhetoric, Bush’s true political nature is that of a moderate conservative. And, we did not make this argument based on religious faith; rather we proffered Bush’s truly astounding presidential record which, amongst other things, shows that he surpassed his liberal predecessor President Bill Clinton by appointing more blacks and women to prominent positions in his administration and by allocating more government funds for welfare programmes in America and for fighting poverty and disease in Africa.

Moreover, Bush has clearly given the finger to religious zealots in his political Party who expected him to nominate someone like arch conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. Because it is already self-evident that Miers is not in the Scalia judicial mold; and, reliable sources indicate that her judicial mold might, in fact, put her to the left of the moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Therefore, wouldn’t it be delightfully ironic if years from now we find that, with the Roberts and Miers nominations, Bush had effectively moved the Court further to the left?

Note: Perhaps the country should thank Laura Bush who made it plain that Miers is the type of person she wanted to see nominated. And President Bush should certainly be commended for heeding his wife’s private counsel – even to the chagrin of his most rabid political supporters.

Endnote: Since spinster Miers will now be cloistered on the bench with confirmed bachelor Justice David Souter, perhaps – in between legal briefs – these two romantically challenged jurists will find time to court each other. And, who knows, they could become the first married couple to serve together on the U.S. Supreme Court….

News and Politics