Supreme Infatuation

When I first learned of Harriet Miers nomination to the Supremes and started looking into who she was, I couldn't escape the feeling that she some sort of deep, abiding, crush on Dubya and that her feelings may well be pathological enough that she would do not only anything to protect him, but pretty much anything he says. This story in Mississippi's Sun Herald just reinforces my gut feeling

You are the best governor ever - deserving of great respect!" she wrote in 1997, in a belated birthday note that was typical of the tone she used in her correspondence with then-Gov. Bush.

As a professional woman with more years of experience than I care to admit, I've been in many working relationships with men - good men - as my mentor, as colleagues and as subordinate employees. Many of those relationships have become personal over the years, even to the point that we may have known a bit too much about each other's professional and private lives. I've given positive feedback to those who have commanded my respect and admiration, but gushing in those circumstances is just not something I've encountered except in instances where the gusher has one colossal crush (except when a mentee has kicked serious ass and outperformed wildest expectations, then you kvell like a mother).

People in crush mode, even the most intelligent and normally rational ones, tend not to make their own decisions when the object of their affection wants a specific outcome/delineate the "right" decision (s)he; they have a habit of disregarding common sense and abandoning all objectivity in favor of pleasing their crush. This concerns me, especially as the President reassures the fundamentalist movement that he knows "her heart". This just adds to my anxiety that the reason for Miers' nomination to the court was to ensure a Stepford Justice, which will not serve the purposes of the court or our country.

Above all else, a supreme court justice must be fluent in constitutional law and objective in evaluating cases in context with the constitution. A justice must be able to put aside personal feelings (religious and otherwise) to properly evaluate a case in an unbiased fashion and then rule in accordance with the law even when rendering that ruling directly contradicts doctrinal teaching and offends their own moral sensibilities. Anyone incapable of separating the two and ruling consistent with the law when secular law and personal beliefs/wished are diametrically opposed has no right sitting on the bench. So far we've seen no evidence that Miers fits that description or that she is anything but a (potentially infatuated) crony to do Bush's bidding.

Tags: Politics; something being imposed on the public; The Bushevik Business Plan; King George; conservatism; supreme court; Harriet Meirs

Sphere: Related Content