Corporate Consulting
	Political Consulting
	About Raynard Jackson
	Recent Columns
	Raynard In The News
	Pictures
	Events
	Links
	Contact Us
	Main Page

Archive

Published: 13 Oct, 2005

Mired in Controversy
By Raynard Jackson, Guest Commentator
 
The District Chronicles
Issue: 10/13/05


Since her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Bush, Harriet Miers has caused a series of perplexing reactions. Many people have stopped or called me to ask me explain the varied reactions to her nomination. Let me first start with what the U.S. constitution says about nominees to the court. The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court. In fact it does not even specify citizenship or age as it does for the executive and legislative branches.

However, Presidents normally nominate individuals who have prior legal experience. Typically, most nominees have judicial experience, either at the federal or state level. Several nominees have formerly served on federal Courts of Appeals, especially the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Another source of Supreme Court nominees is the federal executive branch, in particular, the Department of Justice. Other potential nominees include members of Congress and academics. On the current Supreme Court, seven Justices previously served on federal courts (including three on the D.C. Circuit); two served on state courts; three were former law school professors; and three held full time positions in the federal executive branch.

The Supreme Court was established by the Constitution of the United States, which was implemented in 1789; under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court was to be composed of six members. Though the number of justices has been nine for almost all of its history, this number is set by Congress, not the Constitution.

In order to become a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, an individual must be nominated by the President of the United States and approved by the U.S. Senate, with at least half of that body approving in the affirmative. Generally, a justice's qualifications are judged by the President and, most visibly, by a Senate hearing. There is no definitive qualification of age or experience that is a standard to be met; instead, there is a much more subjective process taken by the Senate, occasionally resulting in a sometimes controversial defeat of judicial nominees.

What is amazing about this nomination is that conservatives and liberal have seemed to reverse roles. Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, has all but endorsed her nomination. The radical liberal Blacks' silence has been deafening. Jesse, Al, Tavis, Maxine Waters, Mel Watts (chair of the Congressional Black Caucus) have said little.

However, conservatives have gone ballistic! Miers' stealth record has alarmed conservatives. Some of them have worked for over a generation for their movement in the sun in regards to the Supreme Court. They expected Bush to nominate "one of them." Someone they would not have to guess about their judicial philosophy. This would be Bush's biggest payback for their support.

Bush's pick of Miers has silenced the usual radical Black liberals. Can you name the last time these radicals have supported a Republican pick to the Supreme Court? Or the last time they came out against a Democratic pick to the court? Remember the old adage, "pick your battles?" You can't fight every battle, but these radical liberals want to fight every battle, i.e. Bill Bennet, Bush & Katrina, Bill Cosby, John Roberts, Trent Lott. Notice that none of these issues will create one job in the Black community, decrease the crime rate, decrease the amount of time our kids watch TV vs. studying, etc. Therefore, democrats pay only lip service to Blacks and Republicans play the tokenism game.

Regardless of who goes on the Supreme Court, will the pathologies in our communities get any better? The obvious answer is NO!  Court are important, but we have so many other issues that are more important.

One thing is certain about Supreme Court Justices. Once they are confirmed, you cannot tell how they will eventually vote, especially over the duration of their term on the court. Liberals and conservatives both want a nominee that they are certain about. This is why I am uncertain about her being confirmed.



About the Author

Raynard Jackson is president and CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, Inc., a political consulting/government affairs firm in Washington, D.C. RJA provides strategic advice and counsel to elected officials (White House, Congress), corporations and entrepreneurs.