A Confirmation Debate in Reverse - New York Times

A Confirmation Debate in Reverse - New York TimesOctober 11, 2005
A Confirmation Debate in Reverse

The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has turned the usual partisan debate about judicial nominations inside out. Republicans have insisted for nearly five years that the president should have broad discretion in choosing judges. Now, charter members of the hurry-up-and-confirm-them crowd, like Senators Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, and Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, are already talking about voting no, even before Ms. Miers's confirmation hearings have begun. The same conservative legal groups that held rallies attacking Democrats for resisting the president's choices for the bench are now talking about blocking a Bush nominee.

During the Bush era, another constant of the confirmation process has always been the Republicans' resistance to Democrats' attempts to learn more about nominees, either by getting hold of documents or questioning them vigorously at their hearings. Now it's the Republicans who are demanding more information. After Ms. Miers visited with Mr. Brownback last week, he complained that she would not give her views on a key Supreme Court privacy ruling and indicated that he might vote against her.

Republicans are also complaining that Ms. Miers got her appointment based on cronyism. It is a legitimate concern, but a new one for many of the people raising it now. Republicans had no objections when President Bush nominated Brett Kavanaugh, an administration operative, to the powerful Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Mr. Kavanaugh, a principal author of the Starr report, was 38 at the time, and had remarkably little experience trying cases. Republicans also eagerly rallied around the nomination of Thomas Griffith to the same court, even though he had practiced law without the required licenses in two different jurisdictions.

If Ms. Miers's nomination has caused Republicans to suddenly acquire standards, it may be causing Democrats to forget theirs. Many appear to have calculated that Ms. Miers would be a more moderate justice than anyone the Bush administration would nominate if she were defeated. Perhaps as a result, Senate Democrats have been remarkably restrained about criticizing Ms. Miers's close ties to the president and the thinness of her résumé.

Even if the timing is politically opportune, it is still refreshing to hear Republican senators talk about the importance of judges' being highly qualified, and about their own obligation to question the president's nominees closely, including about their views on specific legal issues. That is how judicial confirmations are supposed to work, no matter which party is doing the nominating. The Senate should conduct a serious and thorough review of Ms. Miers's record and her qualifications for the job - and then do the same for every judicial nominee who follows her.