There's something that annoyed me about President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers. It was the comment he made: "I've known her long enough to know she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she will be the same person with the same judicial philosophy she has today." The first thing that pops into my head is that, "How does he know she's not going to change? People change all the time."
Now, all this rigamarole over neither side being pleased with her nomination actually kinda pleases me, because if she pleases neither side, it means she's a compromise candidate, and compromise is always something I like to see when it comes to government. But if you're going to compromise, do it. Don't do it and say appeasing things to your party like, "She's not going to change."
And besides, isn't a judge supposed to be open to change? Shouldn't the job of a judge be to weigh both sides of the argument, and decide based on the merits of the case, rather than the way it's always been done? There's a role for precedent, a very important one. There's a joke in the accounting world based on the fact that one of the first questions we ask about a tax return or an audit is, "What did we do last year?" But we also know that what was done last year might not be right. Sometimes we keep doing something a certain way, even if it wouldn't be what we would decide to do if this was the first year. But sometimes it's prudent to change, and it might behoove the President to remember that.
posted by Amanda @ 8:30 PM
4 Antiphon:
Yes yes! Unbending! Unable to see other points of view, understand the, and modify own thoughts! Unable to adapt to new situations! These are all things I look for in my people o' power!!!
Whoooottt!
(I'm halfway through my second cup of coffee for the morning. Sorry about all that.)
Change is the only constant.
And given how complex and flawed people are, you can't predict how they'll change/stay the same.
I mean I know my Mum pretty well. And one day, when I forgot my wallet, a gentleman I know at the bus stop offered to lend me the fare (we used to get the same bus everyday). I would have done it, but I was sure Mum wouldn't, she'd have gone back home.
I went back home, got it, went into work late. Told Mum, found she'd have accepted it and given him the money the next day or even dropped it to his house as he apparently lives a few streets away.
Humans- flawed and complex.
Callie
Have you considered that consistancy might be an admirable and desirable quality for a judge? What if her "judicial philosophy" is such that she remains unswayed by emotion, power, and financial pressures in her decisions and considers each and every case with the same focus and fairness as the law allows? Wouldn't we want that to remain "unchanged"? ---Just a thought.
Yes, I do agree with that point.
However, I'm not positive that is the spirit in which the "unchanging" comment was made. Of course, my interpretation is colored by my own biases and dislike of the President's speaking style, so I admit some adversity here in my perception of his implied attitude. My impression was that the President was, at least in part, implying that by investigating Ms. Miers' past statements and positions, it would indicate how she would vote on future issues.
I think this is a reasonable position to take, considering the President's wish to reassure his core constituants that Ms. Miers is a conservative candidate with the qualities outlined in his campaign promises, and what those constituants wish to see in a nominee.
Post a Comment
<< Home