The Supreme Court, to paraphrase the late great Rodney Dangerfield, gets no respect.

We elect politicians based on their opinions regarding touchy social issues, but overlook the fact the only people with power to do anything about these issues are the nine justices who make up the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court decisions can dramatically change our social landscape overnight – all it took was a majority vote to legalize abortion, desegregate schools and uphold the right to privacy. Yet because the president, not the populace, determines who the justices are going to be, we focus our political eyes on politicians.

Maybe that is what President Bush was hoping we would do when he greatly disrespected the court by nominating Harriet Miers to the highest court in the land.

Who is Harriet Miers? Miss Miers was a Dallas lawyer from 1969 until 1995, when George Bush, then Texas Governor, made her head of the Texas Lottery Commission.

She then followed Bush to the White House, where she has remained – first as an adviser, then as the president’s personal lawyer.

When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired, Miers was put in charge of finding the new Supreme Court justice. This is as close to the Supreme Court as she should have come. Yet when Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away, Bush was forced to appoint another justice. He appointed his lawyer.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the highest court in the land, and only the most qualified candidates should get the job. After Bush appointed John Roberts, who was more than deserving of his Supreme Court role, one would hope he would pore over resumés, determining which judges were qualified for the job. Instead, he picked his friend.

Miers has never been a judge, never written anything about law and has little legal experience past being a trial lawyer. Somehow, I get the feeling she was not the most qualified candidate out there. Nobody knows her stances on legal issues: She has given money to democrats, but worked for republicans.

Conservatives are afraid she will turn out to be liberal, liberals are afraid she will turn out to be conservative. So why would Bush appoint such an individual?

In his eyes, he may have believed not saying much about legal issues would work in favor for him, and allow one of his friends to get on the highest court in the land. After all, Roberts’ stances on certain issues still aren’t clear, and he was easily approved by congress.

Roberts, however, has a long history in law and had an impressive career as an appellate judge. And though his legal stances were a mystery, there was little doubt he had the ability to interpret the constitution fairly in determining legal cases on a national level.

Miers, on the other hand, ran a state lottery and is best known as a Bush loyalist since his days as governor. If Bush rates potential court appointees based on their ability to be appointed rather than legal experience and potential, he should have someone else handle the selection process.

The Supreme Court is not a place for the president’s friends, and only the finest and most experienced persons in the country should be appointed. It shouldn’t matter how hard it is getting them appointed. We have already allowed presidential and congressional races to become less focused on political stances and more on how charismatic the candidate is. We must not let the Supreme Court become a popularity contest as well.

Miers is not qualified for the Supreme Court, and one can only hope congress forces Bush to make a better decision on the future of our nation.

Columns reflect the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the Northern Star staff.