Choosing a Friend

If I wanted to choose someone to be the guardian for my son should I die, I might choose my friend Mike. I have known him for thirty years. I know how he thinks and what he believes. We agree on many issues, we share many values, and I could trust him to raise my son as I would raise him.

I think the same sort of analogy applies to Harriet Miers, President Bush’s choice to replace Sandra Day O’Connor. She and the President are very close. He knows how she thinks and what she believes. They agree on many issues. They share many values. He can trust her with his legacy.

What does that mean? I think it means a neoconservative, right-wing agenda, just as if he had chosen someone like Dick Cheney.

If we were looking for a hard working person to fill the vacancy, Harriet Miers might be the perfect choice. But I thought we were looking for a thoughtful judge, someone like John Roberts, perhaps Maureen Mahoney, a highly respected person with Supreme Court experience, who would probably win strong bipartisan support.

Harriet Miers is much more difficult to justify to anyone outside the President’s inner circle. Her choice immediately evokes such words as “crony,” and there seem to be many other people out there who are much more qualified to be a Supreme Court justice than she is.

I think President Bush’s choice was made on an ideological basis. He chose someone who he could trust, and who, consequently, the right wing could trust. We could be in for a fight over this one.