OP/ED: The Miers Conundrum

I don't know if she has some 'inside information' on the President and this somehow contributed to her election. But the fact that she is W's personal lawyer, or was, is very disturbing.

The Economist magazine had a good point in a recent op/ed... Basically, this takes cronyism too far. A certain amount is expected, but the Supreme Court is the third branch of government, not a mere cabinet posting. The President has seriously usurped the bounds of "decent" cronyism in politics with this appointment. If Bill Clinton had tried to appoint his personal lawyer to the Supreme Court, no one would have stood for it. I wouldn't have, even though I liked the guy. Of all the thousands of legal scholars and judges in America, to pick someone who was your own personal lawyer for one of the highest posts in the land is just wrong, regardless of her views. I think I would agree even if she were more experienced, simply because of the mere appearance of impropriety. It's like appointing your personal doctor as the Surgeon General, except a thousand times worse, because at least the Surgeon General's post falls under the executive branch and was not intended by the founding fathers to be a counterweight to your own authority.

I hope that during her hearings the Senate and the press bring this matter up, instead of the usual "one or two social issues to the exclusion of everything else" routine. The more I think about this the more I think her appointment could be a very dark day for the Constitution.

-koji K.

[edit on 19-10-2005 by koji_K]