Picture this: you are interviewing a person for the job of a gourmet Japanese chef. This person brings you a full r‹¨sum‹¨ and plenty of references. The only problem is that the person has only worked in an Italian restaurant … and as a waiter. Would you give the person the job?
Of course not. It’s not a question of whether Japanese cooking is better than Italian, or whether a chef is better than a waiter. This is a question of credentials and experience. The person would not know how to roll a sushi roll or flavor a spicy tempura dish.
Now imagine hiring a politician and lawyer to be a Supreme Court judge.
That is what is happening again in the selection of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. It seems that her only qualifications include being a woman (to replace Sandra Day O’Connor) and being a Bush supporter.
Yes, she has experience in the law. She had a private practice as a lawyer before she got into politics and served in several important political offices. However, it’s been years since she’s held a position in practicing law. Since then, she’s pretty much been a politician dealing with political issues.
A Supreme Court judge, by definition, is not a politician. The fact that Supreme Court judges are not elected, but nominated for life by the president, is an integral part of the checks and balances of our government. A Supreme Court judge does not make choices to please the public. He or she interprets the law, makes precedent, holds the law to the Constitution and plays watchdog for the other branches of the government.
A politician is, by definition, a people-pleaser. A politician must gauge the right attitude to have and the right issues to address in order to get elected. After being elected, a politician must conduct himself or herself in the proper way in order to stay in office and get re-elected.
Lawyers know the law but are mainly interested in helping their clients. Lawyers generally find ways to bend or surpass the law in favor of a client. The lawyer is biased in nature, while the judge must be an unbiased … well … judge. A judge cannot be swayed by preference or even pay from any person.
Now, I am not meaning to demean politicians, lawyers or even waiters. I am merely pointing to a difference in experiences and job descriptions. Of course a lawyer can become a judge. That happens all the time. But a judge should get experience in lower courts before being considered for the Supreme Court, just as a person wanting to be a Japanese chef would go to school and then start at as an assistant in a small Japanese restaurant.
Why is Harriet Miers being put in a Supreme Court judgeship when there are so many judges in this country who would have the experience and credentials to do the job effectively? You can draw your own conclusions.