When a president is facing a scandal, he relies on his White House counsel. That doesn’t mean a president should pick his lawyer to be on the Supreme Court. Mickey Kaus raised this point last week with a poignant analogy.
Cheryl Mills did an excellent job loyally defending Bill Clinton. But if Clinton had nominated her to the Court, don’t you think there would have been an outcry?
Yes, I think there would have been. We’d hear calls about “cronyism” and the need for the president to pick someone “independent” of White House political influence.
Ultimately, we’re talking about a Supreme Court nominee with no judicial experience, political experience, or public record, and who’s most notable career achievement is being Bush’s lawyer. And she’s the most qualified person in the nation to serve on the Supreme Court?
I realize that a lot of people are understandably sick of hearing “if Clinton had done this…” but in this instance, it seems even more apt than usual.