The everyday blog of Richard Bartle.
RSS feeds: v0.91; v1.0 (RDF); v2.0.
Previous entry. Next entry.
3:40pm on Thursday, 6th October, 2005:
The nomination by President Bush of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is something that looks odd to my jaded European eyes. It's not because she was chosen solely because she's the only female law-type person Bush knows (hey, he's president, he could nominate a horse if he wanted), but because of the way the US has reacted to her nomination.
All the questions being asked by politicians and the press concern her opinions on various matters, and how no-one knows what they are. What's her stance on abortion? What's her stance on assisted suicide?
These are the wrong questions. The right questions concern her stance on what the constitution says about abortion, assisted suicide or whatever. She might be anti-abortion, but feel that the constitution supports it. Shouldn't that be how these things are judged? Isn't the point of the Supreme Court to interpret the US constitution, not to intrepret how its members would like the constitution to be?
I'm just a visitor: what do I know...
About this blog.
Copyright © 2005 Richard Bartle (firstname.lastname@example.org).