White House Counsel Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court on Oct. 3 has caused AU students and faculty to question her qualifications, judicial philosophy and her connections to President Bush.
Ashley Mushnick, a junior in the School of Public Affairs and president of College Democrats, said Miers lacks the qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice.
"Harriet Miers is not qualified for the Supreme Court in comparison to John Roberts, who displayed a judicial career of accomplishment and excellence," she said. "Her legal career was at best mediocre and in no way deserving of comparison to Sandra Day O'Connor's career."
Danielle Zook, president of College Republicans, said she is waiting until after the congressional hearings to evaluate Miers' capabilities.
"I don't have enough information about her at this time to make an informed decision," she said in an email.
If confirmed, Miers would replace Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced her retirement on July 1.
Miers, who has never been a judge or ever argued a case before the Supreme Court, has had experience as a lawyer and politician. She was also elected to a two-year term as an at-large member of the Dallas City Council in 1989. Miers became the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association in 1986, and the first female head of the Texas State Bar in 1992.
Some feel that having a Supreme Court justice who has not previously been a judge would be beneficial.
"The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who is purported to have recommended Miers for the position, in a statement released by his office on Oct. 3.
While many Supreme Court justices have served as judges prior to their confirmation, the inclusion of justices who lack prior judicial experience is not without precedent.
"The vast majority of justices have served as judges before being nominated to the Court," said Washington College of Law professor Jamin Raskin. "However, there have been justices who have come from other walks of life ... former Associate Justice Abe Fortas, for example, was a lawyer and worked in a number of government agencies prior to being nominated by President [Lyndon Baines] Johnson."
Conservatives have criticized Miers' lack of a documented conservative judicial philosophy. According to Robert Bork, a 1987 Supreme Court nominee who was rejected by the Senate due to his conservative judicial philosophy, Bush's selection of Miers is "a slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years."
Adding to conservatives' concerns is the revelation that during the 1980s, Miers gave $3,000 to Democratic causes, including a $1,000 donation to Al Gore's failed 1988 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Another problem mentioned by Miers' critics is that the nominee is too closely connected to Bush.
"I believe this nomination was a bad mixture of cronyism and possibly affirmative action," Mushnick said. "If Harriet Miers was a man, we'd all be wondering why George Bush picked him over tens of other qualified legal experts. ... I am concerned that her relationship to George Bush is inappropriate for a judge. Will she think about pleasing who she once called the 'most brilliant man she ever met' when making court decisions?"
Miers' confirmation hearings are likely to be more controversial than the confirmation hearings in September for Chief Justice John Roberts, and she faces a much lower likelihood of confirmation that Roberts did, Raskin said.
"[Miers'] hearings are likely to be contentious, volatile and unpredictable," he said. "In contrast, I would say that the Roberts hearings were subdued and genteel ... if she does make it through the hearings, I would say that she has a one in seven chance of being confirmed"
