Harriet Miers (Finally, a Supreme Court nominee who understands real people.)
Personally, I want a Supreme Court nominee who understands the Constitution...
BY JOHN CORNYN
OpinionJournal.com
Although the ink is still drying on her nomination, the president's selection Monday of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has already been met with praise from senators on both sides of the aisle. As one would expect, her nomination has also been met with questions by those who do not yet know her. But those of us who do know and have worked with Ms. Miers think very highly of her, and we believe she will make a valuable contribution to the Supreme Court.
Nonetheless, some have criticized the president because he did not select an Ivy-League-credentialed federal appeals court judge for the open seat. I think this criticism is misplaced. For one thing, there is no evidence that service on the federal court of appeals is a prerequisite for distinguished service on the Supreme Court: 41 of the 109 justices who have served on the Supreme Court had no judicial experience at all when they were nominated. These include several luminaries from the school of judicial restraint, including the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Furthermore, Harriet Miers's background as a legal practitioner is an asset, not a detriment. She has spent her career representing real people in courtrooms across America. This is precisely the type of experience that the Supreme Court needs. The court is full of justices who served as academics and court of appeals judges before they were nominated to the bench. What the court is missing is someone who understands the consequences of its decisions on the American people.
This experience gap is a real one. With the exception of the newly confirmed chief justice, John Roberts, no justice on the court has been an advocate in a court of law in the past 25 years, and Chief Justice Roberts was involved only at the appellate level.
Harriet Miers, by contrast, has a long and successful career as a lawyer representing corporate and individual clients in a variety of state and federal courts. I am confident that this background provides her with an understanding of the burdens of modern litigation, a recognition of the problems with frivolous lawsuits and an appreciation for tort reform.
BY JOHN CORNYN
OpinionJournal.com
Although the ink is still drying on her nomination, the president's selection Monday of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has already been met with praise from senators on both sides of the aisle. As one would expect, her nomination has also been met with questions by those who do not yet know her. But those of us who do know and have worked with Ms. Miers think very highly of her, and we believe she will make a valuable contribution to the Supreme Court.
Nonetheless, some have criticized the president because he did not select an Ivy-League-credentialed federal appeals court judge for the open seat. I think this criticism is misplaced. For one thing, there is no evidence that service on the federal court of appeals is a prerequisite for distinguished service on the Supreme Court: 41 of the 109 justices who have served on the Supreme Court had no judicial experience at all when they were nominated. These include several luminaries from the school of judicial restraint, including the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Furthermore, Harriet Miers's background as a legal practitioner is an asset, not a detriment. She has spent her career representing real people in courtrooms across America. This is precisely the type of experience that the Supreme Court needs. The court is full of justices who served as academics and court of appeals judges before they were nominated to the bench. What the court is missing is someone who understands the consequences of its decisions on the American people.
This experience gap is a real one. With the exception of the newly confirmed chief justice, John Roberts, no justice on the court has been an advocate in a court of law in the past 25 years, and Chief Justice Roberts was involved only at the appellate level.
Harriet Miers, by contrast, has a long and successful career as a lawyer representing corporate and individual clients in a variety of state and federal courts. I am confident that this background provides her with an understanding of the burdens of modern litigation, a recognition of the problems with frivolous lawsuits and an appreciation for tort reform.
posted by Andy W. Rogers | 10:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home