From Meet the Press yesterday:
SEN. HUTCHISON: […] I think when you look at the background of all the other justices, every one of them have served on a circuit court of appeals. She would be the only one whose entire career up until now has been in the private practice. You know, the Supreme Court handles commerce cases. They handle eminent domain. We’ve seen a recent opinion where many legislatures have already tried to change their eminent domain laws because they think the Supreme Court went way too far. There are cases on property rights as well as taxation. I can’t imagine that we wouldn’t want someone with practical real-world experience on the Supreme Court of the United States.
And this is supposed to be an argument for Miers?
Note to Senator Hutichison: the commerce clause and the eminent domain clause are both in the Constitution and therefore pointing to those clauses does not underscore how her “practical real-world experience” trumps her lack of experience in constitutional law.
The root problem, in my opinion, of both the Kelo (eminent domain) and Raich (commerce clause) cases were in mis-interpretation of constitutional principles. As such, it would be nice to have a nominee who has some bona fides in conlaw.
Understand, the above was the basic response to this question by Russert:
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Arlen Specter, Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, met with her. He believes that she had confirmed with him she believed the right of privacy existed in the Constitution, then called him later and retracted that. Senator Specter has also said this, and I’ll show you and our viewers, “She needs a crash course in constitutional law.”
Miers Nomination: “Practice” Exam
Here is a sampling of the kind of questions I would like to see Harriet Miers asked during her confirmation hearings…
Trackback by A Stitch in Haste — Monday, October 24, 2024 @ 10:33 am
I think we have pretty much established that Kay Bailey will be the next nominee when Miers withdraws.
Comment by SoloD — Monday, October 24, 2024 @ 12:21 pm
Your argumentation on this post is incoherent.
Kelo and Raich were wrongly decided (5-4 and 6-3 respectively) by SC Justices with clear bonafides in Con Law.
So, the solution to this is to appoint someone with “bonafides in Con Law?”
Or, possibly you mean someone whose bonafides in Con Law demonstrate that they will acheive a certain “outcome” when deciding cases such as Kelo and Raich?
Comment by Terry — Monday, October 24, 2024 @ 10:17 pm
But Terry, the solution to that problem is to appoint Justices who have a proper understanding of the Constitution. Clearly there are a number of Justices on the bench who do not properly interpret the constitutional principles in questions.
How can that be corrected by appointing Harriet Miers?
That isn’t incoherent at all.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 25, 2024 @ 8:28 am
I’m still not seeing how this avoids being an “outcome-based” judgement, since you are the fact that this hypothetical “best candidate” have specific interpretations of different sections of the Constitution to determine their “bonafides in Con Law.”
After all, just the other day you were scolding the Miers supporters for making “outcomes- based” judgements. Seems to me what you are doing is exactly the same thing, except you are hiding behind the figleaf of “they have to use the right process” to come to the outcome you desire.
Comment by Terry — Tuesday, October 25, 2024 @ 2:53 pm
It’s been a long day, and I am tired, so perhaps not fully coherent: but I am not saying I expect a Justice to produce a specific outcome on the commerce clause, but that judicial philosophy will result in a particular view of the commerce clause.
Where am I asking for a specific outcome?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 25, 2024 @ 8:47 pm