My wife’s brother is a bartender. Recently, he applied for a job as product manager for the Boston Beer Company, makers of the Sam Adams brand. In his view, he is eminently qualified for the job because he “knows about beer.”
Any levity we might have shared about my brother-in-law’s credentials for a corporate job — he has a degree in English — seems entirely misplaced in light of recent events. I’m referring, of course, to President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers — his personal lawyer — to the Supreme Court. Ms. Miers has no judicial experience.
As a high-profile lawyer, Ms. Miers hung out with judges all the time, not unlike how my brother-in-law serves beer every day. My brother-in-law, however, isn’t being appointed to the Supreme Court. He hasn’t heard back from Boston Beer Company either.
My gripe isn’t against Ms. Miers in particular. It’s against a system which seems to engender cronyism. Shouldn’t a certain minimum level of judicial experience be required for an appointment to the highest court in the land? (Yes, it was wrong for Rehnquist too.)
