Roberts and Miers: a Double Standard

from The League: Reassembled

Responding to conservative criticism that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers lacks the qualifications to sit on America's highest court, Senator Mikulski (D-MD) expressed shock "at the sexism and double standard coming out of the far right." Whether or not sexism is a factor in the conservative movement's deep suspicion of the Miers' nomination is speculation. But Mikulski is right to point out that a double standard is coming into play here.

The double standard is the level of scrutiny conservatives are calling for on Miers compared to that they wanted on recent Chief Justice nominee John Roberts, who was confirmed late last month.

During the Roberts nomination, Republicans attacked Democrats for seeking insight into Roberts' judicial, political and personal philosophies. In his opening statement in the committee hearings, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) advised Roberts to avoiding answering any questions that may have shed light onto his positions.

He said

I'm hoping that we won't see a badgering of the nominee about how he'll rule on specific cases and possible issues that will or may come before the Supreme Court....

The fact is that no senator has a right to insist on his or her own issue-by-issue philosophy or seek commitments from nominees on specific litmus-test questions likely to come before that court. To do so is to give in to the liberal interest groups that only want judges who will do their political bidding from the bench regardless of what is required by the law and the Constitution.

The result is, then, loss of independence for the Supreme Court and a lessening of our government's checks and balances.

Grassley was absolutely right. Knowing such information threatens judicial independence. The Republicans and conservative interest groups were making Grassley's argument throughout the Roberts nomination.

But that was when they thought they knew exactly how the nominee would rule on the issues. Now that they are faced with an unknown quantity, conservatives, particularly anti-abortion, anti-gay and anti-First Amendment conservatives from the Christian right, are demanding just what Grassley rejected: "commitments from nominees on specific litmus-test questions like to come before the court."

On the Fox News Sunday cable talkshow, Christian conservative Gary Bauer urged Senators to vote against confirming Miers because, since she has never sat as a judge, she has " no judicial record on things that really matter -- the establishment clause, stare decisis, things like Roe v. Wade."

So let's get this straight: when Democrats try to get Roberts' views, they are threatening a "loss of independence for the Supreme Court" through "a badgering of the nominee," but when conservatives, including some Senators request the same information, they are simply fulfilling their civic duty? I don't think so. Just as Roberts was confirmed without publicly answering all questions, Miers deserves the same treatment, regardless of conservative's lack of confidence in her religious right credentials. To do otherwise would be a double standard.

from The League: Reassembled with revision

Comments

[JustJack]

Hold up! I personally don't case about a double standard in this particular case... Roberts was given a free pass and he shouldn't have had one at all. So now to be non-sexist-correct, we're going to advocate a pass for a nominee who also should not have a pass?! That's like saying, well, in order to fight fires equally and in all fairness, we should just let them burn down the neighborhood because we let the first house go without really fighting it. That's perverse! This is our lives at stake here. Enough messing around, fight this one regardless of whether any others were fought out. I can't believe I'm reading what I'm reading.

[The League]

JustJack,

Its not a matter of double standard about Miers' sex ("Whether or not sexism is a factor... is speculation"). The double standard is due to Miers' lack of a judicial record.

A nominee's right to refuse to take positions on constitutional issues is essential to the independence of the judiciary. If nominees were required to publicly state their views, politicians could pick and choose based on those views instead of on temperment, qualifications and judicial philosophy. The judiciary would be run by those who simply vote the way politicians want instead of on the facts of the case. This would be a serious threat to the independence of the court.

While the religious right is in power, arguing that we as a public (or as Senators) have a right to know nominees' positions is appealing. But to weaken the court's indepedence would, in the long run, be a serious blow to our constitutional protections.

-Alex from The League: Reassembled

[The League]

JustJack,

Its not a matter of double standard about Miers' sex ("Whether or not sexism is a factor... is speculation"). The double standard is due to Miers' lack of a judicial record. During the Roberts nomination, conservatives chided Democrats for trying to ascertain his judicial positions. Now that Miers is the nominee, the same individuals are attempting what they have recently condemned

A nominee's right to refuse to take positions on constitutional issues is essential to the independence of the judiciary. If nominees were required to publicly state their views, politicians could pick and choose based on those views instead of on temperment, qualifications and judicial philosophy. The judiciary would be run by those who simply vote the way politicians want instead of on the facts of the case. This would be a serious threat to the independence of the court.

While the religious right is in power, arguing that we as a public (or as Senators) have a right to know nominees' positions is appealing. But to weaken the court's indepedence would, in the long run, be a serious blow to our constitutional protections.

-Alex from The League: Reassembled

[JustJack]

You say nominee's right to refuse to comment on constitutional issues help preserve the independence of the judiciary. But here with Roberts and now Miers, the necons are using that "keep it zipped" strategy as a means to control the judiciary. They've turned this on it's head. That's where the danger lies not in whether or not neocons are being sexist or in having double standards. Your commentary just made the article even more of a non sequitur. What is it you're really trying to say, 'cuz I'm obviously missing your point and I'd like to understand.