The Supreme Court appointment process has become almost pathological . . . ironically, for rational reasons. The incentive is for presidents to select people who are: (1) young, so they have a reign on the Court that rivals Fidel Castro’s in length; and (2) obscure, so they have rarely taken any positions on any major issues. [Sadly, the future prospects for Supreme Court appointments for bloggers are not looking good.]
The nomination of Harriet Miers has left many people guessing. We know very little about her. Mark Graber writes on Balkinization: “What both John Roberts and Harriet Miers have in common is that the administration knows a lot more about them than the rest of us.” Jack Balkin calls her a “stealth candidate.” Orin Kerr is “quite puzzled.”
We should be selecting Supreme Court justices from the most accomplished and distinguished of legal figures. Instead, being a judge for a long time almost disqualifies a person for the Supreme Court.
The Senate confirmation hearings have turned into vapid ritual, where Senators posture and bluster, and the appointee does a well-rehearsed dance to reveal as little as possible. No appointee is going to go before the Senate and say: “Well, yes, Senators, I intend to legislate from the bench. I’ll be activist. I won’t follow the Constitution. Instead, I’ll decide cases based on what I’ve had for breakfast that day. I’ll be biased and I’ll try to twist the law to conform to my personal whims.”
I hope that in the debates that follow about Harriet Miers, the focus will also include the systematic problems with the appointments process more generally.