Nominees without a judicial record face credibility problems that can sink them
Evidence
President Bush had considerably more difficulty finding a replacement for Justice O’Connor. He was under some pressure to appoint a woman to the slot— even First Lady Laura Bush said on NBC’s Today show, “I would really like him to name another woman.” Yet the potential female nominees who would satisfy his political supporters were sure to excite vehement Democratic opposition because of their conservative records as judges. Faced with this dilemma, the president selected Harriet Miers, who had served as his personal lawyer when he was governor of Texas and then as staff secretary, deputy chief of staff, and counsel to the president in the White House. Miers was not only a longtime Bush loyalist; she also had the advantage of not having a “paper trail,” of not having espoused views that could be challenged, because she had never written about constitutional law. But if this lack of a track record insulated her somewhat from Democratic attacks, it deeply concerned Republican conservatives, because they thus had no evidence about how she would vote once on the Court. Her lack of experience in dealing with constitutional issues also concerned some senators, who wondered whether she had the appropriate background for a seat on the Court. When President Bush attempted to allay the concerns of conservatives, it merely fueled opposition to her nomination. Faced with a Republican revolt, Miers withdrew from consideration only 23 days after she was nominated. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 364
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Gubernatorial appointment resembles federal judicial selection requiring confirmation — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 386; Presidents must balance confirmability against ideological purity when choosing nominees; A nominee lacking a paper trail fails to satisfy ideological gatekeepers — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 364 (+1 more)