As opposed to my contention in my recent write-up on Harriet Miers, ‘Only in America’, it turns out that Ms. Miers does indeed possess some fairly serious experience with constitutional matters, as so poignantly pointed out by the Wall Street Journal.
Not only that, but in her representation of none other than George W. Bush, her presentation to the Supreme Court required the court to adopt a very expansive interpretation of an obscure amendment to the Constitution, to wit: the 12th Amendment. And she apparently did a credible job of it inasmuch as the court ruled in her, that is to say, Bush’s favor at a very critical juncture during his first presidential campaign.
Perhaps this is why some of the right wing elements of the Republican party are so adamantly opposed to her nomination. She’s demonstrated her willingness to interpret the Constitution as a ‘living’ Constitution, and has demonstrated considerable skill in doing so. She successfully persuaded a judge to take what her brief described as a “broad and inclusive” reading of the Constitution, and what the right wingers want is a candidate who has demonstrated a propensity for relatively narrow interpretation of constitutional texts.
Like I’ve said, though, she is one flexible lady.
This brings to mind the humorously brilliant statement one of our readers made in his comment that immediately follows my Miers piece:
To those who worry that Ms. Meirs was never a judge, I would reassure them that this might be her only real qualification. No real judge in this country would allow sketchy hearsay evidence by someone two hundred years dead, writing about something that had no bearing on the question at issue, to be heard in his or her courtroom. Ergo, in a field of judges, Ms. Meirs is the only obvious choice.
I can’t help smiling when I read that but, you know, he may well be right. By someone ‘two hundred years dead’ he, of course, refers to the Constitution’s original framers. Read the Wall Street Journal story by clicking on the headline.