Great Idea - Nominate Someone Who Isn't a Judge to the Supreme Court!

Remove all ads!

I should have been more clear in my initial post. I'm not saying that she isn't qualified. In fact, I don't think you even have to be a lawyer to be qualified for the position. Being American may be enough. The question is not about her qualifications.

The issue here is what kind of judge will she be? If you have experience as a judge (for example, Roberts had two years experience) you can review judgements and decisions to gain some insight into what kind of justice this person will be. In this case, such a review is not possible, as she has produced no rulings.

While it can be pointed out being Bush's personal attorney smacks of cronyism, I did not intend to condemn the selection just because Bush made the selection. Rather, I was pointing out how it may be a difficult confirmation, simply because there is so little anyone appears to know about the person. That's why it's preferable to pick someone who either was a judge or at least worked in a judge's office. From everything I've read, she's been in private industry exclusively prior to taking the job as the President's counsel.

 

Hacken: okay, so she has a law degree (from Southern Methodist University, no less ). I did not say she is not qualified to practice law. However, for a Supreme Court position, presumably one should need to pass a higher bar.

And about those 'impressive' firsts in Texas... I suspect that has to do more with Texas being Texas, than with her brilliance. Let's not even mention that Bush nominating someone from his inner circle (and apparently reputed for her loyalty to him) should raise a few eyebrows.

 

Khaavern, the article I read said specifically that Reid had listed her as one he would support. I tend to believe it, as Reid has already issued a press release hailing her as an excellent choice and a "trailblazer."

 

Well, that may be so; the stuff I read said it the other way, and I cannot find out any definitive statement at the moment. Still, it would be quite dumb for Reid to 'preapprove' any nominee, I would think; that would leave him without leverage if he decides to change his mind later. It is true that apparently he likes her; the conservatives seem to be much more inflamed with Bush's choice so far

A great comment on the National review blogsite

 

Reid will have no choice but to oppose her. The word is getting out that she's religious and is not friendly to the abortion advocates.

 

I thought Reid already had her on a list of pre-approved candidates... Actually this appointment seems to be upsetting conservatives far more than liberals, and right now both sides are claiming that it was a show of weakness. We'll see how the confirmation hearings go...

 

khazadman: it looks pretty unlikely that the Democrats will try to filibuster this appointment. After all, there is no smoking gun pointing out the candidate's extreme right wing leanings (if there are such). And trying to use the issue of qualifications... well, thats' a long shot. As far as I can tell, the left gets much more incensed about stuff like Roe vs. Wade than of questions like the candidate being able to properly do his/her job.

What I find interesting is that Miers apparently has no expertise in constitutional law; she is a corporate lawyer (I am sure Aldeth can elaborate on the differences). This means that while this choice may make the religious right apoplectic, it might please the business wing of the Republican Party. And I think it would fit with the trends of this Bush Administration; so far, the big winners have been the big business interests (while the religious part got thrown some bones).

 

There is no such thing as an "abortion advocate." There are those who are pro-choice, but certainly almost no one "advoactes" that anyone should get an abortion, except "maybe" Bill Benett in his reference to black people. But then what exactly did he mean?

Also, don't imply that those who don't agree with your political stance are "not religious." Some us on the left may be more religious than you and others, including those TV evangelists believe (or pretend to believe).

[ October 04, 2005, 04:27: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@ T2: I can hear it now... "The Force is with you, young petitioner to the Court... but you are not a Justice yet!"

EDIT:

@ Chandos: Disturbingly true, and it speaks volumes about the situation black Americans are typically in (at least, compared to white Americans). It'd be funny how the conditions of criminogenesis are so often overlooked in favour of pathologising an individual or community if it weren't so tragic.

Bush nominates woman for Supreme Court (The Age)

I don't doubt her qualifications as a corporate lawyer and competent professional. Even so, this appears to be an obvious conflict of interest (at best). The purposiveness of this choice worries me, as...

Without knowing more, my instinctive reaction would be to fight such an appointment, irrespective of the administration. There are just too many probable ulterior motives underlying this nomination for me to be comfortable with that choice.

Apparently, such a move (appointing a non-judge to the Supreme Court) is hardly unprecedented.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I don't doubt that Miers will be able to do the job; I do question the reasons why she was nominated by Bush, particularly at a point in time where the administration is under greater siege than at any stage in its history.

 

Some interesting comments from Pat Buchanan.

Highlights:

Just a question of my own: Are tolerance activist and diversity-mongers one and the same?

 

It is pretty clear that Bennet was making an example of a horrible thing to do that would, in fact, reduce crime. It was a rhetorical point intended to demonstrate that reducing crime is not the most important thing in the world. If it were, he was saying, then it would be ok to kill all the black babies.

 

@khaavern:

You may be giving me too much credit! Frankly, I don't know of any lawyer that specializes specifically in Constitutional Law. That are no doubt cases where Constitutional law is an arguing point, but unlike things like corporate law, environmental law, intellectual property law, etc., you don't see people specializing in Constitutioanl law. I suppose it's possible, but you don't see many people doing it. That having been said, in order to pass the National Bar, which Miers has, one has to know Constitutional law. It's probably not fair to say that she has no experience in it. While she may never have worked in that field, every law student is required to take Constitutional Law as one of their early prerequisite courses, and is tested on it when they take the Bar exam.

 

From what I can tell, there are a lot worse people that George W could have nominated--like that guy that wanted to abort all the black babies. Let's give her the chance to do the job, then when you don't like her ruling, then you may begin the bitch fest...

 

But then it's too late, Gnarff! Unlike most other members of our government, Miers is unanswerable to the people. Once appointed, she is appointed for life. That's why I think it is good to pick people with broad support. Someone who will likely hold their seat of power for a minimum of a couple of decades, should have widespread appeal. Your arguement would be stronger if, a few years down the road, she would have to re-elected.

EDIT: I just saw this as well on msnbc. I can't imagine why the Christian right would have any problem with Miers as a pick, given that she says her life has been SHAPED BY JESUS

[ October 05, 2005, 16:01: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Gnarff: would you use same argument for the erstwhile head of FEMA, Michael Brown? Let's give him a chance to prove himself, and if he screws up, oh well, then bitch all you want...

I thought people which are given (or take) high responsability jobs (as being a Supreme Court Judge is, I imagine ) should have already proven themselves.

Aldeth: well, I was talking about expertise in constitutional law. To me this would imply arguing cases on constitutional issues, writing articles on this type of matter in speciality journals (I assume there are such), the type of things people which have experience in an area do. I am sure she took the class in school, and was tested on it at exams But this does not make her an expert.

For me, one of the biggest problems with Bush is incompetence. I mean, himself is incompetent (tell me one thing he was successful at) and he hires incompetent people (hacks). I can overlook the partisanship, but this... Just look at who is part of this administration: Rumsfeld, Gonzales, ... - who is at treasury? I don't even rememeber - and compare with people in the Clinton administration. Actually, it can be said that the only people which are good at what they are doing in the Bush administration are the political guys (Rove, for example).

 

Honestly, given the vehement reactions of the extreme right AGAINST the Miers nomination, I'm feeling ever better about her candidacy. Let's see if she actually makes it through the hearings.

 

@khaavern - I guess I failed miserably in making my point. What I was trying to point out is that unless you already are a federal judge, you probably don't have much experience in federal law. It's just not a field that a whole lot of lawyers go into. As a lawyer, you may have cases that involve the Constitution, for example, a case involving the right to peaceful assembly, but it only covers a specific part of the Constitution. I don't know of anyone outside of federal judges that can be considered Constitutional experts when considering the Constitution as a whole.

 

So if the Democrats don't like her because she was Bush's Lawyer, and the Right doewsn't like her, then she should piss everyone off. Sounds perfect for a judge...

 

It's actually ironic. It looks like for her nomination to go through they are actually going to need the support of a good number of Democrats in the Senate, because the Republicans are not united enough to confirm her on their votes alone.

 

Here's another great editorial by Howard Fineman of Newsweek. I just had to share this one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9600021/site/newsweek/