President Bush selected Margaret Miers as the new Supreme Court justice nominee Monday, a decision which spurred controversy among both conservatives and liberals. The nomination and possible confirmation of Miers is of particular importance because, if confirmed, Miers might alter the balance in favor of the conservative side.
“The thing that makes this such a crucial nomination has to do with the person that is being replaced, Sandra Day O’Connor,” Marty Wiseman, MSU professor and director of the John C. Stennis Institute of Government, said. “Sandra was not viewed as a conservative or liberal but as a moderate. She tended to be the swing vote on many decisions.”
If O’Connor is replaced by Miers, who holds an obvious affiliation with conservatives, the balance of the court will be tipped, Wiseman said. This could create a tense situation when it comes to issues involving life, such as Roe v. Wade, cases on stem cell research and euthanasia, Wiseman added. Issues of the right to privacy and gay marriage could also be affected.
Although Miers is a Republican, particular party affiliation should not interfere with the role of a Supreme Court judge, associate professor of political science and administration Diane Wall said.
“Political party identification of justices is mooted. Typically, Republicans tend to be more conservative than Democrats, but the party does not necessarily determine how justices will vote,” she said.
What is more important is the ideological perception of the justices and their understanding of the role of a judge on the high court, Wall said.
Some conservatives, in addition to liberals, also raised questions about Miers’ qualifications. Miers has no experience as a judge but served as a lawyer, held high positions in various bar associations, and most recently served on the White House counsel for the past four years.
“One of the best ways to know someone’s judicial temperament is to read their reasoning on cases they decided as a judge,” Wiseman said. “When you have simply an attorney who has practiced law but has never been a judge, it is much more difficult to discover their thinking about the big issues because they’ve never written anything about them.”
However, there is a debate over whether or not judges should be questioned about their beliefs about certain issues, such as abortion or religion. Judge’s beliefs should not interfere with their ability to be objective, Wiseman said.
“The crux of the argument is that there should not be litmus tests either way as to how someone would vote on something, but simply, we should be trying to discover the width and breadth of their legal mind.”
Other Republicans don’t feel that Miers’ lack of judicial experience should be an issue.
“I think that has no bearing on her abilities,” vice president of the MSU College Republicans Sammie Cawthorn said. “She is definitely a determined woman and has risen very far in her life. If you look at her resum?, she has accomplished great things.”
Democrats, however, associate this nominee with other failed appointees like former FEMA chief, Michael Brown.
“I think Bush did what he did with a lot of his offices. He picked a nominee based on loyalties,” College Democrats president Matt Holmes said.
When replacing O’Connor, one of the most pivotal members of the high court in history, Bush chose a poorly qualified candidate, someone who would rubber stamp his agenda, Holmes said.
“When it comes to the Supreme Court, it is not about democratic rights, it’s about American rights,” Holmes said. “It is important for the new judge to be a symbol of independence.”
Some Democrats label Miers’ nomination as cronyism, which is not an uncommon practice throughout history, Wiseman said.
“When you look back through history, in many cases the president has some connection with the people he appoints,” Wiseman said.
Cawthorn, however, thinks this is not such a case.
“At first, having never have heard of her in great length, I was a little taken aback. After hearing her resum? and doing some research on my own, I feel that she is very capable,” Cawthorn said.
No matter what the controversy is over this nomination, the Supreme Court will always have one primary function, to interpret the U.S. Constitution, Wiseman said. “The Supreme Court uses cases brought before it to tell us what the meaning of the language of the Constitution is,” Wiseman said.