Harriet Miers next SC Justice Nominee

[Taro T]

Looks like Bush will announce tonight at 8:00 Eastern that current White House counsel Harriet Miers as nominee to fill the O'Conner vacancy.

 

Link

 

It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out. You know the cry of cronyism will be heard loud and strong. Also, I expect cries about how she isn't even a judge, even though it appears a few Senators of both parties recommended to Bush to choose someone outside the current judiciary.

 

Dave.

[KD in CA]

In related news, Sen. Schumer announced that he will vote 'no' on Ms. Miers' nomination.

[Johnny Coli]

You know the cry of cronyism will be heard loud and strong.

462631[/snapback]

You think?

 

Here's her MSNBC profile: Link

 

 

Why didn't he just nominate Karl Rove or Andrew card? How can someone that loyal to a sitting president, with no judicial record at all, be an impartial Justice? I'd like to hear what the "independents" on this board think of this selection.

[Mickey]

A mystery candidate. She should show up for the hearings wearing the Riddler's costume, you know, the one with all the question marks on it. Or she could wear a T-shirt that says "My buddy got to be President and all I got is this lousy Supreme Court nomination."

 

I heard she is single, never married in fact. She has no kids and is a real workaholic which can be a good thing. Married to the job I guess. I wonder though what personal perspective she might have or lack. Not that it would have anything at all to do with whether or not she should be confirmed. I'm just curious as to how many "confirmed bachelors" have been on the court and whether that experience invested any of their opinions whith a special insight or in fact, their opinions suffered from lack of insight at the other end. If she was from the left I am sure we would hear all sorts of nasty things about her life as a woman devoted to her career rather than a family. I wonder if the reverse will hold true, will women on the left find her careerism and powerful ambitions to be a plus?

Will there be folks on the right who find that kind of personal history to be worrisome?

 

My guess is that the issue will be the elephant in the room. Democrats will be too reticent to tag a woman with being too ambitious or to be critical of a lifestyle choice by a woman which centers on her career. At the same time, I think it would be hard for the Schafly crowd to extoll the virtues of a woman whose entire life begins and ends with the workplace.

 

I think she will be confirmed as easily as was Roberts. Too much of a mystery for anyone to know enough about her to get all worked up over.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

You think? 

 

Here's her MSNBC profile:  Link

Why didn't he just nominate Karl Rove or Andrew card?  How can someone that loyal to a sitting president, with no judicial record at all, be an impartial Justice?  I'd like to hear what the "independents" on this board think of this selection.

462755[/snapback]

 

I think it's odd. A clear case of cronyism, albiet in its "best" sense (in that Bush chose the best lawyer he was familiar with), but based on her merits...well, she doesn't have a lot, does she? Active in the Texas bar at least, which is probably the best positive I can see about her.

 

The biggest problem with the nomination that I have is that she has no track record to judge, which means that when it comes down to the Inquisition, she'll be judged exclusively on personal and partisan grounds...which makes me wonder if this isn't meant to instigate some sort of partisan reaction to prompt some sort of "Up yours!" to the Senate Democrats, as I certainly don't see a lot of judicial sense in it.

 

As for Miers' suitability for a Supreme Court seat...I wish I could judge her on her own merits instead of Bush's lack thereof...but I can't see where she has anything to suggest her, good OR bad. Like I said, odd...why nominate someone that no one can judge?

[slothrop]

My problem with her is that she is utterly unqualified! This is like a Joel Giambra appointment!

 

She went to Southern Methodist Law School and was NEVER a judge. While there have been several Supreme Court Justices who had no judicial experience, most of them stood out in the area of Constitutional Law. Maybe they were top of their class from HArvard, Yale, Princeton, etc and became a constitutional law scholar. Or, their practice area was so impressive in relevant areas.

 

From what I can tell Meirs has none of these things. SHe was a private attorney and became a political insider. This is disturbing in light of the fact that Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be insulated from the political process.

[Mickey]

I think it's odd.  A clear case of cronyism, albiet in its "best" sense (in that Bush chose the best lawyer he was familiar with), but based on her merits...well, she doesn't have a lot, does she?  Active in the Texas bar at least, which is probably the best positive I can see about her. 

 

The biggest problem with the nomination that I have is that she has no track record to judge, which means that when it comes down to the Inquisition, she'll be judged exclusively on personal and partisan grounds...which makes me wonder if this isn't meant to instigate some sort of partisan reaction to prompt some sort of "Up yours!" to the Senate Democrats, as I certainly don't see a lot of judicial sense in it. 

 

As for Miers' suitability for a Supreme Court seat...I wish I could judge her on her own merits instead of Bush's lack thereof...but I can't see where she has anything to suggest her, good OR bad.  Like I said, odd...why nominate someone that no one can judge?

462834[/snapback]

I am beginning to suspect that ol' George can't resist making a little mischief here and there. This nomination could potentially tick off just about everybody. The right clearly wanted a rock-solid nominee on abortion whose views were pretty will known and who would almost guarantee a filibuster/nuclear option fight. They didn't get that. In that sense, even though this nominee might turn out to be as hostile to Roe as Pat Robertson, this is a defeat for the far right. I think those middle of the roaders who stopped the nuclear option are likely the ones whose views carried the day here.

 

However, for all we know, no such convoluted concerns or intricate political strategy was in play. Maybe he just nominated her because he likes her and thinks the world of her legal abilities without a lot of thought on what she thinks of the Commerce Clause. That isn't meant as a criticism, just a hunch that Bush places a premium on trust and friendship rather than political calculations. Is it really cronyism to go with the people you trust and admire the most? Maybe there is such a thing as "good" cronyism?

[KD in CA]

The right clearly wanted a rock-solid nominee on abortion whose views were pretty will known and who would almost guarantee a filibuster/nuclear option fight.  They didn't get that.  In that sense, even though this nominee might turn out to be as hostile to Roe as Pat Robertson, this is a defeat for the far right.  I think those middle of the roaders who stopped the nuclear option are likely the ones whose views carried the day here.

 

 

Let's hope so.

 

 

Moderate conservative = good.

[Wacka]

Rheinquist had no prior Federlal court experience.

[slothrop]

Rheinquist had no prior Federlal court experience.

462952[/snapback]

 

Wrong, Renquist went to a top teir law school ranking in the op of his class. He then clerked for Justice Jackson - a very prestigous position. Also, as attorney general he was required to work in the federal courts.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Terrible choice. Conservative, Liberal, I don't really care. She just doesn't have the qualifications to sit. Here is hoping the ABA dings her and other Senators fall in line.

 

On a sidenote, here is an interesting note from confirmthem.com on a memo being circulated by her supporters:

 

“As a leader of the bar, Harriet Miers was a fearless and very strong proponent of conservative legal views. She led a campaign to have the American Bar Association end its practice of supporting abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded abortions.”

 

** no representations as to accuracy.

[Mickey]

Wrong, Renquist went to a top teir law school ranking in the op of his class. He then clerked for Justice Jackson - a very prestigous position. Also, as attorney general he was required to work in the federal courts.

462981[/snapback]

He cullld aslo splel.

 

You are almost as good a typist as my secretary. Almost.

[EC-Bills]

Looks like Bush will announce tonight at 8:00 Eastern that current White House counsel Harriet Miers as nominee to fill the O'Conner vacancy.

 

Link

 

It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.  You know the cry of cronyism will be heard loud and strong.  Also, I expect cries about how she isn't even a judge, even though it appears a few Senators of both parties recommended to Bush to choose someone outside the current judiciary.

 

Dave.

462631[/snapback]

 

This nomination makes no sense whatsoever. So in a political context, it makes perfect sense. Ugh.

[slothrop]

He cullld aslo splel. 

 

You are almost as good a typist as my secretary.  Almost.

463006[/snapback]

 

My secretary can splel. It is why I hired her! LOL!

[Bob Lablaw]

Isn't it odd to appoint someone without federal judicial experience to the highest federal court in the country?

[OGTEleven]

I read somewhere that she was on Reid's suggestion list. That ought to ensure that some righties get ticked. Alos, she contributed to the Gore campaign in 88.

[Mickey]

Isn't it odd to appoint someone without federal judicial experience to the highest federal court in the country?

463034[/snapback]

It should be but it isn't.

[Alaska Darin]

Call me crazy but I like the idea of not having 9 people with exactly the same experience and background. It'll shake the foundation, which is probably a pretty good thing, since it's pretty much the way the country came into existance.

 

Or we could keep the status quo.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

However, for all we know, no such convoluted concerns or intricate political strategy was in play.  Maybe he just nominated her because he likes her and thinks the world of her legal abilities without a lot of thought on what she thinks of the Commerce Clause.  That isn't meant as a criticism, just a hunch that Bush places a premium on trust and friendship rather than political calculations.  Is it really cronyism to go with the people you trust and admire the most?  Maybe there is such a thing as "good" cronyism?

462920[/snapback]

 

That's why I suggested above it was the "best" kind of cronyism. There's no particular reason to believe he's not picking from a pool of possibilities that he finds qualified, and not choosing the one nominee he knows best and trusts the most.

 

There's also no particular reason to believe he's not challenged by the crossword puzzle on the back of his Cocoa Puffs box, too. Just because he's sincerely presenting who he thinks is the best choice for the position, doesn't make it so. Technically, that, and not for the opportunites for face-time and partisan soundbytes for the senators, is why we have the Senate approval process.

 

Any way you slice it, though, it's an oddball choice. Offering up a judicial nominee with no judicial experience after you've been flayed in the press for having appointed a FEMA director with no emergency management experience?

[Bob Lablaw]

Call me crazy but I like the idea of not having 9 people with exactly the same experience and background.  It'll shake the foundation, which is probably a pretty good thing, since it's pretty much the way the country came into existance.

 

Or we could keep the status quo.

463170[/snapback]

 

This country came into existence under the leadership of the American aristocracy, which for the most part, was a bunch of really rich guys who came from generational- not self-made- wealth.

 

As to shaking the foundation, I have nothing against that. But I am wary of a candidate with no experience at the level she will be practicing. She has little litigation experience. And no Constitutional experience. Would you put an Arabian horse evaluator in charge of FEMA? Wait. Scratch that. Let me use another example: would you put Stojan in charge of national defense?

[Mickey]

That's why I suggested above it was the "best" kind of cronyism.  There's no particular reason to believe he's not picking from a pool of possibilities that he finds qualified, and not choosing the one nominee he knows best and trusts the most.

 

There's also no particular reason to believe he's not challenged by the crossword puzzle on the back of his Cocoa Puffs box, too.  Just because he's sincerely presenting who he thinks is the best choice for the position, doesn't make it so.  Technically, that, and not for the opportunites for face-time and partisan soundbytes for the senators, is why we have the Senate approval process.

 

Any way you slice it, though, it's an oddball choice.  Offering up a judicial nominee with no judicial experience after you've been flayed in the press for having appointed a FEMA director with no emergency management experience? 

463198[/snapback]

No doubt, the timing of this kind of choice is pretty weird. Maybe the thought is that of all the people George finds acceptable nominees, this is the one most likely to garner some democratic support despite so that any cronyism charges will be muted. If so that would fit the idea that at this point, he is too vulnerable to force a fight with republican moderates and democrats. Maybe he figured he didn't have the political capital to go with a controversial nominee beloved by the far right.

 

It certainly is a head scratcher.

[Taro T]

That's why I suggested above it was the "best" kind of cronyism.  There's no particular reason to believe he's not picking from a pool of possibilities that he finds qualified, and not choosing the one nominee he knows best and trusts the most.

 

There's also no particular reason to believe he's not challenged by the crossword puzzle on the back of his Cocoa Puffs box, too.  Just because he's sincerely presenting who he thinks is the best choice for the position, doesn't make it so.  Technically, that, and not for the opportunites for face-time and partisan soundbytes for the senators, is why we have the Senate approval process.

 

Any way you slice it, though, it's an oddball choice.  Offering up a judicial nominee with no judicial experience after you've been flayed in the press for having appointed a FEMA director with no emergency management experience? 

463198[/snapback]

Actually, what I think it is the guy showing he's a pretty good politician, democratic opinion that he's the stupidest thing this side of Jessica Simpson aside. If Miers gets confirmed, then he has someone HE knows extremely well and feels comfortable with on the Supreme Court. I have to assume that he feels very comfortable with how he expects her to rule on issues that he considers important. If she gets shot down, due most likely to her never having been a judge, then he gets to nominate someone else - quite possibly Rogers Brown who by all accounts I have read (and no I have not seen details of her decisions) is very STAUNCHLY conservative who the Democrats will now have an even harder time defeating IMHO. I think the Democrats would be extremely reluctant to filibuster or vote down 2 nominees within one year of an election for fear of being viewed as strictly obstructionist.

 

So do the Democrats give him a pass on a nominee that they have very little paper trail to follow, hoping she turns into another Souter; or do they fight tooth and nail with the very strong possibility that someone who is known to be more conservative is waiting in the wings? Either way, I think Bush "wins" this "fight".

 

Dave.

[slothrop]

Does he and the republicans have enough political capital left to push a controversial pick through? I think that is an interesting question and will be "fun" to watch.

 

As I stated above, I think she is wholly unqualified to fill, IMHO, one of the 9 most important positions in our government. And there is no "lets just see how she works out and we can change our minds later."

[KD in CA]

Does he and the republicans have enough political capital left to push a controversial pick through? I think that is an interesting question and will be "fun" to watch.

 

As I stated above, I think she is wholly unqualified to fill, IMHO, one of the 9 most important positions in our government. And there is no "lets just see how she works out and we can change our minds later."

463301[/snapback]

 

 

Just out of curiosity, which conservatives do you feel would be qualified for the USSC?

[slothrop]

Just out of curiosity, which conservatives do you feel would be qualified for the USSC?

463358[/snapback]

 

If you read my posts concerning Roberts I thought he was extremely qualified! This woman is not even in the same universe as "qualified." It has nothing to do with her political views. She is void of anything that makes her qualified other than graduating from an average law school and passing the Bar.

[Alaska Darin]

This country came into existence under the leadership of the American aristocracy, which for the most part, was a bunch of really rich guys who came from generational- not self-made- wealth.

463246[/snapback]

Yeah, I remember all those aristocrats picking up their muskets and taking on the Red Coats...

[Bob Lablaw]

Yeah, I remember all those aristocrats picking up their muskets and taking on the Red Coats...

463373[/snapback]

 

I didn't say they weren't admirable; they are. But they were made of a common thread- with similar backgrounds. And that's what we were discussing.

 

On your digressive line, I couldn't find a ready source summarizing the founding fathers' military experiences, but some of them never fought, including the biggies like Madison, Jefferson, and Adams.

[blzrul]

The headline from the Dallas Morning News' web site ought to be reason enough to think twice:

 

"Legal Community Overjoyed"

 

Excluding Mickey and my sister from the mix, when that pack of...well, you know...is overjoyed it doesn't bode well for the rest of us.

[Mickey]

I didn't say they weren't admirable; they are. But they were made of a common thread- with similar backgrounds. And that's what we were discussing.

 

On your digressive line, I couldn't find a ready source summarizing the founding fathers' military experiences, but some of them never fought, including the biggies like Madison, Jefferson, and Adams.

463467[/snapback]

Each one of them would have been hanged if the war had been lost. The Yankees among them were mostly the noveau riche of their day. Hancock was about the richest guy in Boston and he was mainly a smuggler. The Virginians were not technically aristocrats but they often acted that way. John Adams was a lawyer who simply worked his tail off. Sam was a failure at just about everything, especially as a tax collector.

[Alaska Darin]

I didn't say they weren't admirable; they are. But they were made of a common thread- with similar backgrounds. And that's what we were discussing.

 

On your digressive line, I couldn't find a ready source summarizing the founding fathers' military experiences, but some of them never fought, including the biggies like Madison, Jefferson, and Adams.

463467[/snapback]

You're missing my point. I also wasn't solely pointing at the Founding Fathers with my initial statement. There were a variety of people (from every class and walk of life) who contributed to the Founding of this nation, not just the folks who signed the Declaration of Independence or forged the Constitution.

 

Hence I don't have a problem with them selecting someone who hasn't been a judge. I'd love to serve on the Supreme Court, even though I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, lawyer, etc. I don't think I'd do any worse than some of the 'tards that served before me.

[Wacka]

I meant that he had on experience as a judge in the federal courts.

[Bob Lablaw]

You're missing my point.  I also wasn't solely pointing at the Founding Fathers with my initial statement.  There were a variety of people (from every class and walk of life) who contributed to the Founding of this nation, not just the folks who signed the Declaration of Independence or forged the Constitution.

 

Hence I don't have a problem with them selecting someone who hasn't been a judge.  I'd love to serve on the Supreme Court, even though I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, lawyer, etc.  I don't think I'd do any worse than some of the 'tards that served before me.

463537[/snapback]

 

Well, there we differ. Although I understand and sympathize with the rock the boat mentality, it seems foolish to not promote the best legal minds (of which John Roberts is undisputably one) to the highest legal position in the country. I've seen, as you may have, that elected judges can be frigging nightmares for want of judicial acumen. I don't want to see that type of problem at the top of the country: the highest court in the land deserves the best legal minds. The highest national defense posts deserves the best military strategists and leaders. And on and on.

[Mickey]

Well, there we differ. Although I understand and sympathize with the rock the boat mentality, it seems foolish to not promote the best legal minds (of which John Roberts is undisputably one) to the highest legal position in the country. I've seen, as you may have, that elected judges can be frigging nightmares for want of judicial acumen. I don't want to see that type of problem at the top of the country: the highest court in the land deserves the best legal minds. The highest national defense posts deserves the best military strategists and leaders. And on and on.

463669[/snapback]

Choosing the best sounds great but the law isn't like the 100 meter dash where only one person is the fastest. You have hundreds that are pretty much on the same level of having a great legal mind. I have no idea if this woman is among the hundreds or not but I'm sure you know what I mean.

 

For good or ill, the Constitution makes it a political appointment first and foremost.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

You're missing my point.  I also wasn't solely pointing at the Founding Fathers with my initial statement.  There were a variety of people (from every class and walk of life) who contributed to the Founding of this nation, not just the folks who signed the Declaration of Independence or forged the Constitution.

 

Hence I don't have a problem with them selecting someone who hasn't been a judge.  I'd love to serve on the Supreme Court, even though I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, lawyer, etc.  I don't think I'd do any worse than some of the 'tards that served before me.

463537[/snapback]

 

Now that would be a lively confirmation hearing!

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

As I stated above, I think she is wholly unqualified to fill, IMHO, one of the 9 most important positions in our government. And there is no "lets just see how she works out and we can change our minds later."

463301[/snapback]

 

I don't know that I'm completely in agreement with that statement (that she's wholly unqualified). I think it's more accurate to say that she's wholly inexperienced, enough so that it's impossible to get a comfortable impression of her qualifications - though I'd argue that her experience in constitutional issues isn't as weak as it is perceived, involved as she was in the legal issues surrounding the 2000 Presidential Election.

 

The second-biggest strike against her, in my opinion, is her experience in front of the bench as a litigator and commensurate lack behind it; I'd like to know that a Supreme Court nominee has some experience non-partisanly representing the law rather than partisanly representing the client.

 

The biggest strike against her, again in my opinion, is that she one called Bush "the most brilliant man I have ever met." Do we really want someone with that sort of judgement sitting on the Supreme Court?

[Terry Tate]

Now that would be a lively confirmation hearing!   

463701[/snapback]

The Bork experience would pale in comparison.

[Alaska Darin]

The Bork experience would pale in comparison.

463779[/snapback]

Finally there'd be something on television that I'd watch.

[Bob Lablaw]

Choosing the best sounds great but the law isn't like the 100 meter dash where only one person is the fastest.  You have hundreds that are pretty much on the same level of having a great legal mind.  I have no idea if this woman is among the hundreds or not but I'm sure you know what I mean.

 

For good or ill, the Constitution makes it a political appointment first and foremost.

463690[/snapback]

 

With respect to the "hundreds" at the same level, she lacks important qualifications that I would expect from those hundreds. She's had no experience at the federal level. Not as a litigator. Not as a judge. Not as a clerk. Those are gaping holes for someone pegged to sit in the highest federal court.

 

John Roberts had little experience as a judge, but few could doubt his knowledge of Constitutional law, and his experience litigating same.

[EC-Bills]

...

 

The biggest strike against her, again in my opinion, is that she one called Bush "the most brilliant man I have ever met."  Do we really want someone with that sort of judgement sitting on the Supreme Court?   

463749[/snapback]

[JimBob2232]

If you read my posts concerning Roberts I thought he was extremely qualified! This woman is not even in the same universe as "qualified." It has nothing to do with her political views. She is void of anything that makes her qualified other than graduating from an average law school and passing the Bar.

 

 

I am sure you know that she is not qualified because you have investigated her background, know what she has done her whole life, know her political views and her views for the SCOTUS. I am sure you did all this research many days and weeks before today, as if you yourself were making the nomination. You might have even talked with her and found out her personal views and qualifications.

 

Or maybe you didnt. Maybe you just listened to some nutcase on TV tell you about her and you ate it up, like a fat kid with a german chocolate cake.

 

Do some research on her. Listen to what she has to say. The president obviously nominated her for a reason. Yes, I too have my doubts based on what i have heard...but I will reserve judgement until I have a better understanding of who she is.

 

Let the contitutional process begin (again)