What About Harriet Miers?

What about Harriet Miers? I've never heard of her before today, but that in and of itself is not a bad thing. Nor is it a bad thing that she has had no judicial experience. That's what seems to be the focus of the media.

But should this be the focus of the media? I believe what the media should be focusing on is the fact that this is a woman who has close, personal ties to Bush.

What do we know about Harriet Miers? We know that she is about 61 years old, we know that she is unmarried, we know that she was born and raised in Texas, we know that she received both her undergraduate and graduate degree in law from a Southern Methodist University, we know that she was Bush's personal lawyer when he was Governor of Texas, we know that Bush brought her to Washington, we know that she was appointed White House council in 2004.

And there is much here that disturbs me.

She is roughly 61 years old and has never been married. Neither of these things, in and of themselves, are necessarily bad. I'm not worried about someone of that age being appointed to the Supreme Court. She will have roughly only 20-25 years, give or take, on the court. That's not as serious as say, Roberts' tenure of a possible 40 or more years to influence Supreme Court decisions in a conservative way.

She's never been married. Also not terribly important, on the face of it. I don't necessarily think one has to be married to understand how marriage might impact one's personal views and life. She can still understand reproductive issues, domestic issues, etc. And in this day and age, it is not so unusual to find that a woman might have invested more heavily in her career than in her personal relationships. Maybe she just never found anyone she wanted to marry. If there was one thing I might be worried about here, it would be that because she has so devoted herself to her career, that's where her loyalties lie. More about that later.

She was born and raised in Texas. Ok. It's not Texas' fault that Bush chose it to adopt as his home State. But it does seem that alot of people from Texas seem to run in the same circles, and boy, they sure do seem loyal to those that have helped them along the way. Keep that in mind.

She attended a religious university. I'm a Methodist. I know people who have attended Methodist Universities. It may not be Oral Roberts, but it's not that much different. A religious university is just that. While it's true that Methodism, as it is called, is not the same as fundamental evangelicalism, it still has its own brand of fundamentalism. The plus is that Methodism is well known for its stance on social justice. The minus is that Southern Methodism is much more conservative than United Methodism.

She was Bush's personal lawyer during his tenure as Governor of Texas. This concerns me. Bush has identified her as a personal friend. He has a long-term working relationship with her. Therefore, she most likely knows him well. She most likely knows his beliefs, thoughts, and desires. She may quite likely know his agenda.

In fact, she was so liked by Bush that he brought her to Washington, D.C. with him and eventually appointed her White House council. Obviously, she is a bright and competent attorney. That's a plus.

But again, just as in Roberts' case, what's not a plus, and what's most disturbing to me, with both of these individuals, is their close proximity to Bush himself.

This is glaringly obvious in the case of Harriet Miers.

How objective would she be? Would she follow Bush's wishes? Is her ultimate loyalty to Bush? Or to the American people? She has said she is a strict Constitutionalist. Bush has said she will not legislate from the bench.

All of these are alarm bells.

I think there is a very real possibility that this woman will reward her benefactor, Bush. He seems to have done much for her career. Now we're into murky waters. She's not married. Is Bush a substitute husband for her? I'm not suggesting any impropriety; I'm merely suggesting a possible emotional attachment on her part to a man whom she has known for decades, and is quite possibly one of the only men with whom she has had a close, personal relationship.

She has a conservative background, witnessed by her choice of universities. Yes, she was the first woman to serve as President of the Dallas and Kentucky Bar Associations, but we all know that sometimes it's who you know that further one's career. That she comes from a State that seems to produce more than its share of politicians who practice cronyism and patronage is not comforting. And even if that weren't true, at most, these could only testify as to her acumen as an attorney, and leadership ability.

It is my opinion that the media should be focusing on two things: Her ability to express an opinion independent of Bush's wishes; and just how conservative this woman might be.

One can only hope that when questionned, she will be more forthcoming than her predecessor, John Roberts.