Often I listen to chunks of President Bush’s press conferences, and often I wonder how he says the things he does without some sort of self-revelation to the effect that nearly everything he says MAKES NO SENSE.
So let’s talk about Harriet Miers. I could get past the fact that she has no judicial experience. However, her nomination smacks of cronyism. I don’t want a crony given a lifetime appointment to the the highest court in the United States. It really rubs me the wrong way that her proximity to President Bush apparently trumps all other highly qualified legal minds available across the country.
And how does President Bush respond to a direct inquiry about the charge of cronyism in the nomination? “I picked the best person I could find.”
Really President Bush? Okay, so maybe you’ve had some incredibly deep conversation with her in which she revealed a tremendous aptitude for the law and judicial precedence. Perhaps during this conversation, you were blown over by her Constitutional philosophy and amazing legal mind. Then, to my chagrin, Bush continues, “Not to my recollection have I ever sat down with her — what I have done is understand the type of person she is and the type of judge she will be.”
But as Bush noted, “To me, a person’s strength of character counts a lot. And as a result of my friendship with Harriet, I know her strength of character.”
Though character is important, is it acceptable as the one reason to nominate someone? Is this the best we can do? I look forward to the Senate hearings, where hopefully we will learn something about Ms. Miers besides that she has great character.