Scotus

Nice to see that the religious right can be just as stupid and dogmatic as the ultra-liberal left.  Poor Harriet Miers.  By most accounts, a decent and thoughtful woman, wholly unqualified for the position she was nominated for, but who would turn it an offer to be on the Supreme Court?  And the bible-thumping whackos chase her out like she was some sort of defendant treading water in Salem.

Why?  Because you’re not sure about her views on abortion and/or school prayer?  Speaking somewhat idealistically, no justice should have a definable view.  Any cases brought before the SCOTUS should be judged on their own merits and the merits of the presiding judge’s actions, not on some prejudicial lightning rod issue.  Granted, you could look at most nominated judges to see their past decisions on Constitutional issues (states rights, judicial review, Bill of Rights stuff, etc.), but even then, any decisions should have been based upon the individual cases.  Basing your confirmation vote on past decisions is somewhat like picking stocks.  “Remember, past results are not a guarantee of future performance.”

And the individual scrutiny in this age of Internet and media advocacy adds multiple layers of complexity to the process.  Can you imagine Justice Whizzer White being nominated today?  He played pro football, for god’s sake.  Don’t you think there might have been a FEW groupie stories that might have come from the University of Colorado?  Don’t you think that someone would make one up, if there weren’t any real ones?

Get real, folks.  Traditionalists will say that this is the best way to do it, that it’s worked for a couple of hundred years.  Checks and balances and all that.  Fine…, it’s different now.  To argue otherwise is just plain stupid.  There are far too many checks and far too few balances.  When the scale is so skewed that Congress is openly staking out positions on past court decisions as a basis for confirmation, we’ve given the Legislative branch far too much say in the process.  

How about this?  The President must nominate a block of three candidates that either presided over a trial that became a Supreme Court case or argued a case in front of the Supreme Court.  Think of this as being the basic resume qualification to be a SCOTUS Justice.  Each Representative must then vote for ONE, but can select “None of the Above”.  If None of the Above is one of the top two vote getters, the entire slate gets chucked and the Pres has to pick a new block.  Think about it, you’ll almost never get a fringe candidate, most would have to be somewhat centrist to garner enough votes from the House to make the top two.  The President wouldn’t even bother putting up a block of similar candidates because all of them could get eliminated.  The people would win over the idealogues.  For a change.