Forty-five minutes later the new chief reappeared with all eight of his Indians. Looking remarkably comfortable, he settled easily into the center seat so recently occupied by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. His first duty was to welcome incoming members of the Supreme Court bar.
This was a duty the dour Rehnquist handled as if his shoes hurt. Given Roberts' reputation for brilliance at the rostrum, some of us in the press room had predicted a welcome at least a little warm and cuddly. It was not to be. Roberts gave us the same-old same-old. The day's arguments began.
Meanwhile the press benches thinned. Word spread of the Miers nomination. This was clearly the hotter story. But Harriet Miers? Who she?
We will learn a great deal about Miers when Senate confirmation hearings begin. Meanwhile, for the record: She was born and reared in Texas. She is a maiden lady, 60. Before joining President Bush as White House counsel in 2003, she had served creditably as president of the Texas State Bar, managing partner of a well-regarded Texas law firm, and enthusiastic dabbler in bipartisan politics. She contributed long ago to the political campaigns of such leading Democrats as Lloyd Bentsen and Al Gore, but mainly her modest contributions went to such Republicans as Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey Hutchinson. She was once quoted in National Review as saying she regarded President Bush as "the most brilliant man she had ever met." Perhaps she has not traveled widely.
Here she messed up a singular subject with a plural verb, to wit: "The wisdom of those who drafted our Constitution and conceived our nation as functioning with three strong and independent branches have proven truly remarkable." Something here indeed were truly remarkable. She continued:
"I'm immensely grateful to the support and love that I feel for my brothers and their families." That muddy syntax should have been taken out to the Rose Garden and buried. She concluded:
"Thank you, Mr. President, for this tremendous honor by your nomination."
Opponents of the Miers nomination will make much of her inexperience on the bench. Over the past 75 years, 35 men and two women have been named to the high court. Sixteen of the 35 flew non-stop from civilian life to the Promised Land. The record defies generalization.
Some of the unsanctified nominees were flops. One recalls especially the former senators, Byrnes, Burton and Minton. They had no prior judicial experience — and all of them were misfits from the get-go. Some of the unchurched performed brilliantly. My generation benefited from Hughes, Frankfurter, Douglas, Fortas, White and Powell, all of whom went successfully from the bar to the bench.
By the same token, prior judicial experience has not been a guarantee of excellence on high. Here one thinks of recent mediocrities — Murphy, Marshall, Burger and Blackmun.
Getting back to Monday at the court: The oral arguments, as we expected, were positively stupefying, but the new chief justice behaved admirably. Three times he asked useful questions of counsel. Otherwise he listened without apparent discomfort while Justices Souter and Scalia baited the visiting bears. Life goes on.
(Letters to Mr. Kilpatrick should be sent by e-mail to kilpatjj@aol.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.
