I had a pretty typical reaction to the nomination of Harriet Miers to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. I flipped through the short list put out by CNN's talking heads, and scratched my chin ... who exactly is this woman? I knew basically nothing about her background. I knew nothing about her beliefs or philosophy. I knew nothing about her qualifications. It's true — Harriet Miers is the ultimate stealth nominee.
I'll admit that as I watched the political process unfold over the next few days, I was surprised by what I saw. Miers has no experience as a judge in any capacity (although she clerked for a U.S. district judge after law school), no experience with constitutional law and absolutely no record, published or otherwise, on her views or philosophy. She is, however, an experienced litigator, the President's former secretary (who was then promoted to chief counsel) and a born-again Christian. Speaking of her lack of overt qualifications, President Bush remarked that he "knows her heart."
Aww, shucks, but that's not going to cut it this time. President Bush has simply invoked the "trust me" approach one too many times for my liking. Republicans trusted him after Operation Iraqi Freedom (which he still claims is a success) and Hurricane Katrina (after all, Mike Brown was a "heck of a guy").
But wait, Miers's supporters counter that Miers is an incredible person. She babysat for her neighbors and still takes care of her mother, who suffers from mental illness. I'm touched that Miers is a good neighbor, daughter and citizen, but that alone tells me nothing about her qualifications as a jurist.
None of this is to say that she is not qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. The fact that she went to Southern Methodist University for law school makes her neither stupid nor unqualified. Indeed, no matter how many Princetonians wind up at top law schools after graduation, we shouldn't forget that Harvard, Yale and Stanford lack a monopoly on high-level legal education in the United States. Through law school and self-study, Miers could be an expert on the Constitution. The problem is that we just do not know, and now have to find out.
The biggest obstacle in Miers's path to her new black robe is the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee is filled with experienced senators — Specter, Leahy, Kennedy, Hatch, Biden, Schumer, Graham and Feingold, to name a few — who understand their duties better than most. Over the course of the hearing, it is their constitutional duty to question her relentlessly. They must ask tough questions on issues like Roe, privacy and the role of the executive. Her policy positions are not nearly as relevant (sorry, Senator Brownback) as the way that she approaches the one document that has kept this country on track for the past 229 years. Does she have what it takes to be trusted with the ultimate tenure? We need to be sure of our answers before the vote.
Scholars have debated the role of the senate for decades. Should senators vote on nominees based on ideology, or is it their job to simply ensure the competency of the President's choices? Thankfully, we don't have to solve that conundrum this time around. When Chief Justice Roberts was confirmed, his answers to questions could be charitably described as stingy. His refusal to answer questions about specific cases (based upon Justice Ginsberg's similar refusal) was aggravating, but at least we knew where he stood. Moreover, whether you like his views or not, his record and previous experiences showed clearly that he is clearly competent to serve. Harriet Miers cannot be allowed to play the same game. If she refuses to answer targeted questions about her views and philosophy, she should be voted down. Rubber stamping the President's latest choice in the name of party unity would make the founding fathers turn in their graves while ensuring an intellectual void on the court for years to come. Is it really worth it? Matthew Gold is a politics major from New York, N.Y. He can be reached at mggold@princeton.edu.
Read More
Charlie Kirk is not the martyr conservatives want him to be
Christofer RoblesIn his piece, Editorial Board Chair Christofer Robles ’26 argues that as members of the campus right misrepresent the status of free speech on campus and Charlie Kirk’s legacy, they legitimize the federal government’s punishment of left-wing students for their political expression.
In his piece, Editorial Board Chair Christofer Robles ’26 argues that as members of the campus right misrepresent the status of free speech on campus and Charlie Kirk’s legacy, they legitimize the federal government’s punishment of left-wing students for their political expression.
BP is out. Here’s what’s next for the climate movement at Princeton
Charlie Yale and Isaac BarsoumFossil fuel companies have abandoned their deceptive climate pledges, and the Trump administration is cracking down on climate research. As governments and corporations abandon climate action, Princeton must step up as a leader on the issue.
Fossil fuel companies have abandoned their deceptive climate pledges, and the Trump administration is cracking down on climate research. As governments and corporations abandon climate action, Princeton must step up as a leader on the issue.
Public service still serves the public
Guest ContributorsIt is sometimes difficult to see the value of service in times of instability, disinvestment in public services, eroding public trust in government, and an uncertain job market. But even in times of massive turmoil, public service is still able to drive initiatives that aren’t sufficiently politicized to make newspaper headlines.
As academia and the federal workforce have adapted to rapid policy changes, the SINSI program and the students it supports have had to adapt. We are the first generation of SINSI Scholars, the SINSI program’s graduate fellows, to contend with this new era of uncertainty.