The Wake

U.S. Supreme Court justices are, in former Justice Robert H. Jackson’s words, “infallible only because we [the justices] are final.” Although Harriet Miers, the recent Bush nominated successor of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, could prove to be fallible. Her resume is lacking any judicial experience. In 1972, Miers entered into private law with the Dallas firm of Locke, Liddell & Sapp. Since 1972, Miers has never made a single ruling as a judge because she has been a practicing lawyer for the past 39 years. In her years as an attorney, Miers has not once argued a case before the Supreme Court.

Traditionally, a Supreme Court nominee has had judicial experience on either the federal or state level. Many have also come from the U.S. Court of Appeals. Although the Constitution does not explicitly state that a justice must have previous experience as a judge. Very rarely, members of Congress or academics, such as law professors, are also considered as potential nominees. In fact, 41 of the past 109 Supreme Court justices have had no previous judicial experience. However, the majority of those forty-one non- judges held office during the formative years of the Constitution in the 1700s and 1800s. Many of these justices even had a part in developing the Constitution itself and therefore had great knowledge concerning the document. Harriet Miers, in contrast, has had no known exceptional interaction with the Constitution of which she is nominated to decipher for the country.

What is known of Miers the lawyer is she has represented companies such as Microsoft and Walt Disney commercially. What’s more, according to John Spong of Texas Monthly in November of 2001, Miers was a co-managing partner of Locke, Liddell & Sapp’s in 1998 when the law firm aided in Austin Forex Investments (a client of the firm’s) in defrauding its investors. Austin Forex Investments (AFI), with the help of Miers’ firm, bilked investors out of over $30 million. In 2000, Locke, Liddell & Sapp settled a lawsuit in connection with the fraud for $22 million and admitted that the firm played a role in deceiving AFI investors. To this day, Miers has not been linked directly to the fraud and denies any involvement.

What is known of Miers politically is she donated money to the Democratic Party in the 1980s. She donated to the Democratic National Committee, the U.S. Senate campaign of democrat Lloyd Bentsen and the 1988 presidential campaign of democrat Al Gore which amounted to $3,000 total. The last donation Miers made to the Democratic Party was in 1988.

In January of 1989, Harriet Miers met George W. Bush for the first time at a dinner party in Texas. After this meeting, Miers would go on to work for Bush’s transitional team in 1994, after he was elected governor of Texas. In the following year, Harriet Miers became Bush’s personal attorney.

When Miers became a part of Bush’s transition team, she donated $12,000 to the Republican Party in several different campaigns.

What is known of Miers religiously is that she is a devout evangelical Christian.

The ideal Supreme Court justice would be an A-political judge—a judge that would rule according to the Constitution only, putting personal agendas aside. However with the recent confirmation of John Roberts as the new Chief Justice and the nomination of Hariet Miers, it seems that the Senate and the President are looking to appoint justices that will rule with bias. This is not a new Bush trend, but rather historically true in America since the Constitution’s conception. Franklin D. Rosevelt even tried to add a seat to the U.S. Supreme Court in the hopes to have another justice that would rule on the side of his New Deal politics.

Many Republicans have voiced their concerns in the media that Harriet Miers may not be conservative enough to be appointed by a republican president. Critics in general have said there is not enough known about Miers to appoint her to the Court.

<(In response to these critics, President Bush has stated that “In selecting a nominee, I've sought to find an American of grace, judgment and unwavering devotion to the Constitution and laws of our country. Harriet Miers is just such a person... I've known Harriet for more than a decade. I know her heart. I know her character.” To paraphrase Bush, he is asking his Republican Senators to trust him on this one.) Cut?>

The President was aided in his task of convincing conservatives of Miers qualifications by the nominee’s former minister, and long time friend, Ron Key. Key has said publicly that “her [Miers’] personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians … You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church.” To paraphrase Key, he is suggesting to conservatives that Harriet Miers will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

The question of whether Harriet Miers will be an A-political, unbiased justice is unfortunately irrelevent. Historically, only 12 nominees have been rejected by the Senate.

it is almost a guarentee that Miers will be confirmed by the republican majority Senate.

What Americans and theCongress, which represents them, should be questioning is whether the U.S. Supreme Court, from nominating justices to making rulings, is doing what the Constitution originally intended. It is clear that an A-political, unbiased justice does not exist. A sitting justice generally embodies the president that appointed him or her.

Justices are appointed for life, although the actual language never says this directly. Rather, the Constitution states that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” It is the phrase “during good Behavior” that has been interpreted to mean for life. With the known fact that justices are predjudice, which is made obvious by the republican demand for a conservative apointee, Americans should ask that terms be imposed on justices.

A life appointment of Miers to the Supreme Court means at least twenty more years of President Bush’s influece in America. Bush’s approval rating has been hovering around 40 percent since the middle of Septemeber. Bush’s ideals today, according to his approval rating, are not representative of the American people’s.

A term of Harriet Miers as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice could be endured. A lifetime appointment of Miers would be intolerable.

Tom McNamera is the Voices staff writer and welcomes comments at .