PrintNo experience necessary?
Soon after Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down last month from the Supreme Court, Stuart Taylor, writing in The Atlantic Monthly, was busy lamenting SCOTUS' disconnect from the 'real—world ramifications' of its work. 'How many remaining justices,' he quizzed, 'have ever held elected office? How many have previously served at the highest levels of the executive branch of government? How many have argued big—time commercial lawsuits within the past thirty—five years? How many have ever been either criminal defense lawyers or trial prosecutors? How many have presided over even a single criminal or civil trial? The answers are zero, zero, zero, one, and one, respectively' and, Taylor said, the judicial system 'has clearly suffered.'
But even if we're to accept that a dearth of 'real—world' experience on the Court is problematic, the burgeoning Harriet Miers scuffle reveals why the sort of balance Taylor seeks may be unrealistic. For starters, even President Bush must've noticed that conservatives' disgust has been shrill, and nearly unison. Aside from more unabashed cronyism, Miers' 'underwhelming' resume seems almost laughable — how, for example, would her stint running the Texas lottery assist in tangling with Ruth Bader Ginsburg over penumbras, 'original intent' and such things? What comfort is to be found in this apparent intellectual milquetoast?
To conservatives, still worse than visceral angst were indications Democrats were tickled pink, led by none other than pit bulls Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and blogger Markos 'Kos' Moulitsas Z
