Pre-Hearing Evaluation of Miers

So I've wasted a lot of time reading and thinking about Dubya's nomination of his Harriet to SCOTUS. My pre-hearing evaluation now stands as being in favor of her confirmation, for three reasons.

For background, it is my humble opinion that a huge problem with SCOTUS is the fact that so few of the members have any contemporary experience actually practicing law. The Country doesn't need 9 separate opinions in its decisions -- a majority opinion and a dissent are fine. We also don't need page after page of dicta or self-important ramblings and squabbling. The problem stems from the fact that their decisions make actually practicing law and advising clients too hard. Multi-step tests, ambigous and undefinable pronouncements, flip-flops -- some of us out here aren't just academically interested in their theoretical pronouncements.

So, first of all, Miers appears to have actually practiced law in private practice. By acceding to the top spot in a large firm in Dallas, she must be perceived as intelligent, hard-working, and as possessing a large amount of business sense from those who have watched her in action for years and years. I hope that will translate into the same types of qualities in her jurisprudence. If so, she'll be a great judge. If so, we need more like her.

Second, what about the cronyism? What if she turns out be intellectually inferior to the other members of SCOTUS? What if she can't hold up to the criticism? What if she is, in other words, just another hack nominated by Dubya to a position that she is not qualified for? Okay, fine. If the lack of the intellectual pedigree means she can't hold her own, then that means her influence will be incredibly minimal. The right will have lost a chance to turn back the clock on SCOTUS. What a great victory for progressives, to have Dubya so weak that he nominated a marginal crony instead of a legal heavyweight.

Third, the only danger to Miers' confirmation lies in the fact that she will always rule in favor of Dubya, on all the contested issues coming before the court. (She'll never recuse herself, since Scalia has written the definitive announcement that SCOTUS members never have conflicts. Thanks, real sound thinking there. Gee, you don't think he ever comes up with the answer he wants and then finds some reasoning to support his politically-desired conclusion, do you?) Well, I don't have any theoretical objection presidential prerogative. Seems to me it works for both parties, just not at the same time. And if her justifications for either ignoring her conflicts or siding in favor of her former boss are transparent and ill-informed? Then that means we all get to point out what a hack Dubya nominated, for the rest of her career.

So, barring some bombshell from her confirmation hearings, confirm her. The choice could have been so much worse for the country. And it might even turn out pretty damn good.