Regarding Harriet Miers, I like this op-ed.
From The Federalist No. 76, about the Senate’s role in voting on a Supreme Court nominee:
“To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.”
(Italics are by the author of the above link.)
Harriet Miers, anyone?
The world must be ending if I’m agreeing with someone who’s written a book called “Restoring the Lost Constitution”.
Good post! Too bad the Senate rolls over so often and plays dead when faced with certain nominees ..
Presidents have used the Supreme Court several times as a dumping ground for their buddies (e.g., Vinson, Fortas, White), but at least those buddies were better qualified than Miers.