I posted the following last night on another Miers-related thread. It is all the Constitution says about the judiciary. Unlike for members of Congress and the president, there are ZERO qualifications specified for members of the judiciary. The Founders knew what they were doing. They chose to leave the matter of who is qualified to sit on the Court to the discretion of the president, with the advice and consent of the senate.
Harriet Miers is not only qualified to be on the Court, her credentials are comparable to, if not greater than, many who have served on the Court before her.
By tradition (perhaps, like so many of our presidential traditions, because George Washington first did it that way) all nominees to the Supreme Court have been lawyers. Otherwise, they come from a wide range of backgrounds and professional experience.
My post from last night:
-------------------
The Constitution is completely silent as to qualifications for justices. This is not an oversight on the Founders' part. They did specify qualifications for members of Congress and the President. The Founders left the issue of judicial qualifications to the president's discretion, "by and with the advice and consent" of the senate.
The president proactively determines the qualifications of judicial nominees. The senate reactively votes to confirm or not to confirm.
Constitutionally speaking, a nominee for the Supreme Court doesn't even have to be a lawyer, or a citizen of the country, let alone be a graduate of any law school deemed by the Ann Coulters of the world to be acceptable.
The Constitution of the United States -- the articles, sections and clauses pertaining to the judiciary:Article. II.
Section. 2.
Clause 2: He [the president] shall ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law...Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
It's a fiction that's grown up very recently -- in fact, since 1967 when Thurgood Marshall was confirmed to the Court. Prior to then, there was always a mix of backgrounds and experiences on the Court, and there were even stretches when none of the sitting justices had served on a lower court.
In addition, these protracted political battles and pompous hearings we see over court nominees today were rare prior the late 1960's. Most nominees were confirmed within days, or at most, within two or three weeks of their nomination. It took 10 weeks -- 10 weeks!!! -- to confirm Roberts, and that's without much of a political battle.
As the Court became increasingly more politicized since 1967, it became common for presidents to reach into the federal appeals courts for nominees. Much easier to read the political tea leaves that way, and to appease political pressure groups.
Frankly, I think we were overdue for a correction to the over-politicization of the courts. On this point, alone, I think what President Bush has done in so strikingly breaking the recent mold is quite courageous. Will Harriet Miers vote consistently the way I hope she will? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I'm willing to keep an open mind until the hearings. If I don't like what I hear, I'll do the quintessential American thing and call my senators to speak my mind.
But leaving aside Miers' potential voting inclinations, I think the argument that reaching out beyond the the ivory halls of elite law schools and the appeals bench has a great deal of merit. I think the Miers nomination is refreshing on a number of levels, and I heartily applaud the President for his willingness to bring a touch of the common man and woman to the nation's highest Court.