Funmurphys: the Blog

I Didn't Get My Way

In keeping with my new policy of posting on issues after a delay to allow me time to (1) get accurate facts and (2) actually think about it, I'm now going to opine on President Bush's supreme court nominee, Harriet Miers. OK, if I waited until the press got its facts straight, I'd never be able to post. But at least I thought about it, and the great thing is, I'm still as disappointed that the President didn't pick Justice Janice Rogers Brown this time as I was when he picked Justice Roberts. Oh well. Just so you know where I'm coming from. No, I wouldn't want 9 of her on the court, but we do need a counterbalance to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (of whom I would prefer to have a number less than 1 on the court).

Since I couldn't actually name all the Justices of the Supreme court, I did a little research and discovered that far too many were undergraduates at Stanford (Kennedy, O'Connor, and Breyer) where none of them took the Physics 60 series, the wimps. Only Souter went to Harvard as an undergrad, and we know how he turned out. And all them have as their chief failing that they are lawyers. If not Justice Brown, why not Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman when there were openings for two justices?

And what is with the claim that we want judges who will be fair and impartial and oh by the way, what are their political views? Like we know that Supreme Court justices are going to vote their politics, principles be damned, but that's OK as long as we agree with their politics? Isn't that what 99% of the questioning by the Senate during confirmation hearings is about - tell me how you will rule on abortion, gays, guns, affirmative action, the environment, the little guy, unions, hats, etc? It's even OK to talk in code somewhat, as long as you show your hand. But we have the nominees claiming that it's inappropriate for judges to do so. Why, you can't judge shop at the Supreme Court. You get all nine unless they have a conflict of interest. Politicians will tell us that its not right to have litmus tests for judges (too bad you can't put a piece of paper up against a nominee and see "pro-abortion" or "pro-gun") but why not?

I'd like to see a nominee come in and spell it all out in detail, not some wonkish "judicial philosophy" but to what stage of development they'd limit abortion at, is a loophole for the health of the mother really a "constitutional" requirement, under what exact conditions should parents be notified or minors be allowed to withhold information from them about abortion, gay marriage is constituitional yes or no or a matter for each state and what does the full faith and credit mean if states differ on this, etc. As long as judges are going to legislate from the bench, we ought to know what their agenda is. I'd prefer that to winks, evasions, silence, and "trust me". And quite frankly, I think it would be educational hearing the nominees explain their views in detail on the leading issues of the day.

Enough process, I'll have to tackle Ms. Miers herself another day.