The Case for Harriet Miers

President Bush stepped into the big pile with his nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court. Outside of the Iraq War, Bush will be remembered mostly for the mark, or lack thereof, that he will leave on the Supreme Court. Those from the right, who have worked over the years to reign in an activist court, look upon Ms. Miers with dismay. No verifiable conservative credentials raises the fear of the Republican knack of appointing liberals in sheep's clothing to the court, translate Justice Souter and the very late Earl Warren. Those from the left are unjustifiably cackling with glee at the Republican dilemma. After all, Ms. Miers is a born again Christian who has overtly stated she opposes Roe v. Wade, and given the chance, she would vote to overturn it. You got to watch out for those born again Christians.

Both sides are pointing to her lack of judicial experience as the pretext to eliminate her from consideration. She is no John Roberts, they say. She needs a crash course on Constitutional Law, they say. Probably true, but where does the real virtue lie?

Ms. Miers history is one of pragmatic politics. She has no judicial experience. She has not argued weighty legal issues in front of the courts. She has not written a lofty opinion. But she managed to get herself elected President of the Texas Bar Association, no small feat given that hairdo before her makeover. And she did get herself appointed as chief counsel to the President of the United States. Not bad work if you can get it. Beats arguing DWI cases in muni court.

I submit that given a choice of John Roberts, the scholar, vs. Harriet Miers, the pragmatist, I would choose Harriet Miers. I have practiced law for 30 years. God save me from brilliant legal minds that leave common sense at the door. The truth of the matter is, in every weighty legal issue, you can find justification for any position on that issue somewhere. In many of these cases, the decisions are ultimately political as opposed to legal, notwithstanding the legalese in which they are written. Case in point, the Dred Scott decision.

Brilliant legal minds can find a snowflake in July. I don't want that. This country's legal system has lost sight of the practical consequences of "brilliantly" looking at a question for the lofty heights of posterity. I would just as soon have someone with less intellect tell me that we all know what the definition of "is" is. Better yet, how about someone who doesn't have the legal intellect to ask the question in the first place?

At the end of the day, all lawyers are trained in stare decisis. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and will never be overturned. What we need is a Supreme Court justice who will say that it is NOT okay for a 14 year old to get an abortion without parental consent, or to partially birth a baby then kill it halfway out of the mother.

We need a Supreme Court justice who will say that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but you know what? Singing a Christmas carol will not bring down the fabric of this nation. And you what else? In God We Trust on our money, and the Pledge of Allegiance, are time honored traditions in this country, and if you don't like it, GET OVER IT. The country will survive with those blemishes on the currently convoluted interpretation of the establishment clause.

Do we really need a brilliant legal mind to do those things? Would a brilliant legal mind be able to do those things? Probably not. I vote for Harriet Miers.