Journalists fail to question Miers' nomination

Harriet Miers, Supreme Court justice nominee, grabs the attention of many American journalists who are dedicating most of their coverage to one single issue and troubling question, “Is Miers seriously against abortion and is her point of view going to affect her judicial decision on this matter?”

This question has been constantly repeated in the last few days, communicating fears and reinforcing doubts among Americans about her selection. But instead of transforming journalism into a fear machine, reporters are missing the larger picture. No journalist has ever been aggressive enough to ask President George W. Bush about the reasons leading to his selection of Miers as Supreme Court justice. And also, what is the procedure of choosing a Supreme Court justice nominee?

The public has only received politically correct comments made by Bush at Miers’ nomination. That Miers is “exceptionally well-suited” for the Supreme Court is a flattering comment, yet does not provide any kind of content analysis to the public. Bush has not really detailed any of the specific qualities he found in Miers leading to her nomination. Why is she well-suited, and what makes her well-suited, if she’s never been a judge?

The media should look at this nomination as something to ponder more on and provide the public with more informative knowledge, rather than filling the public’s minds with tension and fear. Understanding how the process of nominating Supreme Court justices works should not just be textbook material for law students but also food to be fed to any ordinary person who reads the news, lives in this country and is or will be civically and politically involved.

Is the president’s selection of a Supreme Court justice so easy as to merely involve a dinner at the White House and a simple, “Would you like to accept a job in the Supreme Court?”

Of course, an analogy could exist between Bush’s and Miers’ judicial ideology. If Bush were trying to push the issue for anti-abortion, he would not have chosen a candidate with an opposite view.

However, a line should be drawn the difference between impartial and personal views. If Bush’s personal views on abortion had a direct impact on his choice of Miers, the politics that generates is at fault. Supreme Court decisions are supposed to protect individual rights and reinforce First Amendment’s principles. If Miers will lead the Supreme Court to an impartial ban on abortion, the decision will be a result of personal views and a total absurdity for the Supreme Court’s judges, who are supposed to be impartial in their decisions.

But is impartiality ever possible? Have judges always been impartial in their decisions? Can judges carry a double view, one personal and the other judicially impartial?

Journalists have to tackle these questions and apply them to the present case of Miers’ nomination. The position Supreme Court judges find themselves in is particularly interesting and unique. This is an occasion for journalists to observe the judicial system and judges with more introspective eyes, almost playing as psychologists.

If Miers’ personal view is, as many say, against abortion and is going to dictate her judicial behavior, assuming that she is confirmed by the Senate, journalists will find themselves covering and analyzing a deep hole in the American democratic system.
When politicians choose Supreme Court justices based on a reciprocal agreement on social issues, and the same judges use their personal views to overrule a historical judicial decision, such as Roe v. Wade, the country is showing signs of political irreverence toward its citizens and democracy will therefore suffer.

If Miers’ possible nomination will bring the results journalists are fearing, the media need to feel more compelled to inform the public on judicial processes and attack the federal government with more analytical and provocative questions.