Supreme Court justice nominee Harriet Miers has some imposing shoes to fill if she is approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee next month.
As she awaits the hearings, some debate has arisen about the importance of replacing Sandra Day O’Connor, the retiring first female Supreme Court justice, with another woman.
One side of the debate contends that O’Connor’s vacant associate justice seat needs a woman to fill it because the court requires another female perspective. If Miers is approved, she will join Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only two women on the high bench.
“Different kinds of people make different kinds of decisions,” said Katrina McCarty, music freshman. “It’s important to have a woman’s view on the court.”
Others disagree, saying gender should have no place in a president’s decision to nominate someone to sit on the bench.
“We need to move from the notion of affirmative action to one of selecting the best person for the job,” said Christine Corcos, University law professor. “Affirmative action is necessary in some instances, but eventually we need to realize that people rise to the top in spite of their packaging.”
Miers’ nomination came as a shock to most of the country because little is known of her stance on key legal issues – including abortion – because she has never served as a judge.
The Senate hearings next month are expected to focus on her abortion stance because the court will consider a New Hampshire abortion law next month, weeks into her term if she is approved.
Politics aside, Miers’ appointment is historic because she would be the third woman in the court’s history to serve as a justice.
“Fifty years ago women were excluded simply because they were women,” Corcos said. “You had to take an extra step to include them. It surprised people when [President] Ronald Reagan nominated O’Connor, and she was probably scrutinized more so than a man would have been.”
Corcos said the nomination of a minority, such as a female, can sometimes become tainted by those who feel a non-minority would have been a better choice.
“There is always some suggestion that the person wouldn’t have made it without the physical aspect’s extra points,” she said.
Though Corcos stressed she thinks a seat on the court should go to the most qualified person over any other considerations, she said she finds it hard to understand why so few minorities have served on the court.
“There should have been more qualified non-white people in the pool available for nomination,” she said. “I find it hard to comprehend that there weren’t.”
Some University students said they agreed with Corcos’ opinion.
“In any organization, you want people who represent every different group,” said Brandi Tregre, biomedical engineering graduate student. “I’m not saying a man can’t speak on behalf of women, but it’s nice to have a visual representation of the female population on the court.”
Contact Jeff Jeffrey at [email protected]