Harriet Miers next SC Justice Nominee

[Bob Lablaw]

Nothing in her lack of qualifications should stand in the way of her approval. The President gets to pick, and as long as he doesn't pick a total ninny, the choice should be approved. She's not shown (as yet) that she's incompetent, and unless she does, she should be approved, even if it seems there are much better qualified candidates. That's the game.

[slothrop]

From CNN.com

 

The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas who had been the president's lawyer," said conservative activist Manuel Miranda of the Third Branch Conference, referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson's pick to the high court in 1965.

 

I am reacting as a lawyer - on teh face of her resume' she is unqualified. There are many brilliant people in this world but that does not make them qualified to be SC justice. For example, Bob Gates is a brilliant man, but unqualified to be a justice. Same with Bush's selection.

 

The Constitution is not something to be cavalier with. This is a rogue pick from a rogue president with questionable judgment. We may be stuck with her for the next 20-30 years. Luckily Abe Fortas resigned when he found he was over his head.

[Chef Jim]

For example, Bob Gates is a brilliant man, but unqualified to be a justice. Same with Bush's selection.

463934[/snapback]

 

Would that be this Bob Gates?

 

This Guy's Brilliant??

[slothrop]

Would that be this Bob Gates?

 

This Guy's Brilliant??

463943[/snapback]

 

I meant Mr. William Gates.

 

you just google "bob gates" to get that web site or do you have that listed in your "favorites?"

[Chef Jim]

I meant Mr. William Gates. 

 

you just google "bob gates" to get that web site or do you have that listed in your "favorites?"

463946[/snapback]

 

Oh no, that guy is all over my favorites. He sucks as a realtor, but he makes me look handsome.

[JimBob2232]

From CNN.com

I am reacting as a lawyer - on teh face of her resume' she is unqualified. There are many brilliant people in this world but that does not make them qualified to be SC justice. For example, Bob Gates is a brilliant man, but unqualified to be a justice. Same with Bush's selection.

 

The Constitution is not something to be cavalier with. This is a rogue pick from a rogue president with questionable judgment. We may be stuck with her for the next 20-30 years. Luckily Abe Fortas resigned when he found he was over his head.

463934[/snapback]

 

 

1) Who the heck is Bob Gates?

2) What does the Constitution say about the qualifications of being a justice?

3) Abe Fortas??? I am not an expert on him by any means, but I do know he didnt resign becaues he was in over his head...he resigned due to ethical conduct. Conduct he eventualy went to prison for.

 

Bottom line..learn what you are talking about before you speak (or type).

 

EDIT: Okay, you meant BILL gates...but technically speaking, Bill Gates is no less qualified for the supreme court than John Robers, Sandra Day O'Connor or even you.

[slothrop]

1) Who the heck is Bob Gates?

2) What does the Constitution say about the qualifications of being a justice?

3) Abe Fortas???  I am not an expert on him by any means, but I do know he didnt resign becaues he was in over his head...he resigned due to ethical conduct.  Conduct he eventualy went to prison for.

 

Bottom line..learn what you are talking about before you speak (or type).

 

EDIT: Okay, you meant BILL gates...but technically speaking, Bill Gates is no less qualified for the supreme court than John Robers, Sandra Day O'Connor or even you.

463957[/snapback]

 

Oh, I know ABe Fortas left because of illegal conduct but that does not hide the fact that when he was nominated the whole country said collectively, "huh?" Same with this choice.

 

Is it too much to ask to have the president nominate someone who is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice? Again, I supported Roberts - I thought he was an excellent choice.

 

Lets put it this way - name one thing that makes the current nominee qualified? Her education? - no. Her judicial experience? - no. Her legal experience? - no. Her lengthy work of Constitutional study? - no. How about clerking for the SC or any federal judge? no.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Nothing in her lack of qualifications should stand in the way of her approval. The President gets to pick, and as long as he doesn't pick a total ninny, the choice should be approved. She's not shown (as yet) that she's incompetent, and unless she does, she should be approved, even if it seems there are much better qualified candidates. That's the game.

463913[/snapback]

 

Because that was the intent of the Constitution's framers, that the president should get whoever he wants and the Senate has no say in the matter.

[JimBob2232]

Lets put it this way - name one thing that makes the current nominee qualified? Her education? - no. Her judicial experience? - no. Her legal experience? - no. Her lengthy work of Constitutional study? - no. How about clerking for the SC or any federal judge? no.

 

Show me where it is written that there ARE requirements to being a supreme court justice.

 

THERE ARE NONE.

 

You dont have to be a judge. You dont have to be a lawyer. You dont even have to be 20 years old or a US Citizen!. All you have to do is be able to convince people that you have the integrity, competence and the judicial temparment necessary for the job (and that isnt even techically a requirement either!)

 

SHE IS QUALIFIED TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

[JimBob2232]

Because that was the intent of the Constitution's framers, that the president should get whoever he wants and the Senate has no say in the matter. doh.gif

 

No, they get to "Advise and consent". And from what I understand, she comes highly reccomended. The consent phase will begin shortly.

[OGTEleven]

From CNN.com

I am reacting as a lawyer - on teh face of her resume' she is unqualified. There are many brilliant people in this world but that does not make them qualified to be SC justice. For example, Bob Gates is a brilliant man, but unqualified to be a justice. Same with Bush's selection.

 

The Constitution is not something to be cavalier with. This is a rogue pick from a rogue president with questionable judgment. We may be stuck with her for the next 20-30 years. Luckily Abe Fortas resigned when he found he was over his head.

463934[/snapback]

You can say rogue this and rogue that all you want, but if GW nominated her and she was on Harry Reid's suggestion list, she is getting in and there is nothing rogue about it.

 

I'm not saying it is good or bad, but hardly rogue.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

No, they get to "Advise and consent".  And from what I understand, she comes highly reccomended.  The consent phase will begin shortly.

463989[/snapback]

 

Sounds like they did "advise". Now we're getting into the "consent" part of the process.

[PastaJoe]

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]

 

She must not know many men. Imagine the reaction of the Right if she gets confirmed, and then it was revealed that she's a closet lesbian. It would be priceless.

[boomerjamhead]

Hello - Earth to all of you liberal dumbasses - Hello -

 

Bush has pissed off his conservative base with BOTH of his recent nominees. The far right wingers are pissed, but you guys are far too partisan (lefty) to see that. No one is going to overturn R. v W. so go ahead and get over that already. The sooner you libs realize that, and the sooner the Democrats in general do, the sooner we can go about the business of our country.

 

Bush has sent a clear signal that he is going to let you have your beloved abortions. You win. Can we move forward now? Please?

[boomerjamhead]

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]

 

He's not as dumb as you think bro.

[Wacka]

The Constitution is not something to be cavalier with.

463934[/snapback]

 

This is exactly why Roberts and Miers are excellent choices. The people of the US have had enough of liberal judges legislating from the bench.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Show me where it is written that there ARE requirements to being a supreme court justice.

 

THERE ARE NONE.

 

You dont have to be a judge.  You dont have to be a lawyer.  You dont even have to be 20 years old or a US Citizen!.  All you have to do is be able to convince people that you have the integrity, competence and the judicial temparment necessary for the job (and that isnt even techically a requirement either!)

 

SHE IS QUALIFIED TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

463988[/snapback]

 

Meeting the minimum threshold, like having a pulse, doesn't necessarily make you qualified to be on the highest court in land. If he wanted to pick someone who has never been a judge or isn't a lawyer, fine. But to make this kind of pick, at least choose someone who is at the top of their field in another area. Miers has no qualities, other than being the President's lawyer, that make her worthy of a high court nomination.

[slothrop]

Hello - Earth to all of you liberal dumbasses - Hello -

 

Bush has pissed off his conservative base with BOTH of his recent nominees.  The far right wingers are pissed, but you guys are far too partisan (lefty) to see that.  No one is going to overturn R. v W. so go ahead and get over that already.  The sooner you libs realize that, and the sooner the Democrats in general do, the sooner we can go about the business of our country.

 

Bush has sent a clear signal that he is going to let you have your beloved abortions.  You win.  Can we move forward now?  Please?

464173[/snapback]

 

I agree with you that a new apointee will not overturn cases laft and right. Again, my objection does not concern her political agenda. Rather I am concerned with her qualifications. The integrity of the Court is my concern. She is simply not qualified. As of yet, not one of you in the "Bush Cult" have been able to point to one thing from the nominee's background to make her qualified.

[OGTEleven]

I agree with you that a new apointee will not overturn cases laft and right. Again, my objection does not concern her political agenda. Rather I am concerned with her qualifications. The integrity of the Court is my concern. She is simply not qualified. As of yet, not one of you in the "Bush Cult" have been able to point to one thing from the nominee's background to make her qualified.

464265[/snapback]

At this point, I don't know whether I am for her or against her.

 

I am curious about your seemingly objective stance that she is not "qualified". What in your view defines a qualification to the supreme court?

 

To me it seems that it takes some real smarts, but that a resume stating Harvard this and Yale that is not automatically required. In summary, the job of the court is to protect the U.S. Constitution from the other two branches of the federal government. Is it really such a complex document and so hard to understand that you need 23 years on the bench to do it? Am I oversimplifying it? If so, why?

[Mickey]

At this point, I don't know whether I am for her or against her.

 

I am curious about your seemingly objective stance that she is not "qualified".  What in your view defines a qualification to the supreme court?

 

To me it seems that it takes some real smarts, but that a resume stating Harvard this and Yale that is not automatically required.  In summary, the job of the court is to protect the U.S. Constitution from the other two branches of the federal government.  Is it really such a complex document and so hard to understand that you need 23 years on the bench to do it?  Am I oversimplifying it?  If so, why?

464287[/snapback]

The document is simple, the infinite array of human experience to which it is applied is not.

 

Compared to many Justices, it looks like she is a lightweight. Compared to others, she is not so bad. Right now I have little to go on besides her lack of reputation outside of Texas.

 

Lets see how she does in the hearings and withhold judgments until then.

[Ghost of BiB]

Didn't read all, but I find it interesting that she is catching a lot of criticism from the right side, albeit the far right side. Afraid of another Sauter.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

To me it seems that it takes some real smarts, but that a resume stating Harvard this and Yale that is not automatically required.  In summary, the job of the court is to protect the U.S. Constitution from the other two branches of the federal government.  Is it really such a complex document and so hard to understand that you need 23 years on the bench to do it?  Am I oversimplifying it?  If so, why?

464287[/snapback]

 

You're oversimplifying it because there's case law to consider. The Constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

And it may be that her experience with case law on constitutional issues is significant enough that she is qualified. Or not. There's nothing overt in her experience that would suggest so. That's why the nomination is such a questionable one and why, as Mickey suggests, it's wise to wait for the hearings.

[UConn James]

Hello - Earth to all of you liberal dumbasses - Hello -

 

Bush has pissed off his conservative base with BOTH of his recent nominees.  The far right wingers are pissed, but you guys are far too partisan (lefty) to see that.  No one is going to overturn R. v W. so go ahead and get over that already.  The sooner you libs realize that, and the sooner the Democrats in general do, the sooner we can go about the business of our country.

 

Bush has sent a clear signal that he is going to let you have your beloved abortions.  You win.  Can we move forward now?  Please?

464173[/snapback]

 

Maybe someone should clue in the anti-choice crowd, b/c it's their constant shouting about a matter of SETTLED LAW that 30 years ago was deemed covered by the "reserved to the people/privacy" clause of the Constitution. This wrangling is what prompts Dems to vocally defend RvW, in a similar way that the NRA (life member here) vocally defends the rights of gun owners. Maybe then we could get on to the whole governing thingy about issues that matter.

[OGTEleven]

You're oversimplifying it because there's case law to consider.  The Constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum. 

 

And it may be that her experience with case law on constitutional issues is significant enough that she is qualified.  Or not.  There's nothing overt in her experience that would suggest so.  That's why the nomination is such a questionable one and why, as Mickey suggests, it's wise to wait for the hearings.

464346[/snapback]

Doesn't she have to have the capability to grasp the case law, moreso than the experience in creating it/working with it already? I know this would "qualify" a lot more people, but is it so unrealistic to have someone with a slightly different background on a nine member panel?

 

I can see how this would be tougher for our brilliant senators to discern (if she will be capable), but that is their job. They should employ their brilliance. Actually I think it would be somewhat refreshing to have the line of questions coming from both sides and have them go toward capability rather than ideology.

[OGTEleven]

The document is simple, the infinite array of human experience to which it is applied is not.

 

Compared to many Justices, it looks like she is a lightweight.  Compared to others, she is not so bad.  Right now I have little to go on besides her lack of reputation outside of Texas.

 

Lets see how she does in the hearings and withhold judgments until then.

464308[/snapback]

Agreed in principle.

 

I do think it is possible for a non-judge, dare I say even a non-lawyer to understand human experience.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Maybe someone should clue in the anti-choice crowd, b/c it's their constant shouting about a matter of SETTLED LAW that 30 years ago was deemed covered by the "reserved to the people/privacy" clause of the Constitution. This wrangling is what prompts Dems to vocally defend RvW, in a similar way that the NRA (life member here) vocally defends the rights of gun owners. Maybe then we could get on to the whole governing thingy about issues that matter.

464396[/snapback]

 

Not that I disagree with you (I don't)...but technically there's no privacy clause in the Constitution.

 

Though well there should be.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Doesn't she have to have the capability to grasp the case law, moreso than the experience in creating it/working with it already?  I know this would "qualify" a lot more people, but is it so unrealistic to have someone with a slightly different background on a nine member panel? 

 

I can see how this would be tougher for our brilliant senators to discern (if she will be capable), but that is their job.  They should employ their brilliance.  Actually I think it would be somewhat refreshing to have the line of questions coming from both sides and have them go toward capability rather than ideology.

464402[/snapback]

 

Not necessarily. The "ability to grasp" case law is significantly different from applying a comprehensive knowledge of it. Similar to how we all have the "ability to grasp" offensive playcalling on the football field, but that doesn't mean we have enough of a comprehensive knowledge of football to actually call the plays.

 

But then, I'm also someone who believes that 80% of anything is common sense. I'll be satisfied with someone who can realize that eminent domain should NOT allow the government to take property from one private entity and give it to another.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think I heard on the news this morning that about 40 of the 100 or so Supreme Court Justices were not judges before. Is that possibly true?

 

I don't know much about Harriet Miers other than I wouldn't want to date her. But as a non-tree hugging liberal, and unabashed Bush hater, so far I think he has made two good choices, and I commend him for it, for there is so little to commend, IMO. As a President, I would expect a guy to name a judge that thinks like him. As a liberal, I expected far, far worse than Roberts and what I have read about Miers. I am glad he replaced a woman with a woman, and not only for whatever she thinks of Roe vs Wade, it doesn't matter, a woman should hold one of those posts. (I meant one of the two choices was a woman).

 

Miers also used to be a Democrat, and contributed to Al Gore's 1988 campaign. Which is funny that Bush just said "I know her and she won't change 20 years from now."

 

I, of course, reserve judgment until we see what kind of judge both Roberts and Miers make, as I expect her to be approved. But for now, for this, "Bush not bad, Bush good!" Quite good, in fact, under the circumstances.

 

From SF Chronicle:

  Bush must carefully scrutinize the benefits and disadvantages of nominating someone who is not drawn from the ranks of the federal appellate judiciary before he names O'Connor's successor. Proposing justices from outside the appeals courts is hardly a recent development. Throughout the 19th century and for much of the 20th, chief executives plucked nominees from other fields. For instance, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Sen. Hugo Black, D-Ala., Attorney General Robert Jackson and law professor-turned-Securities and Exchange Commissioner William O. Douglas. President Richard Nixon named Assistant Attorney General William H. Rehnquist and distinguished practitioner Lewis F. Powell Jr.

 

Because Congress established the federal appellate courts in 1891, a majority of justices, even in the 20th century, were not federal judges when appointed. It was only after 1965 that the appellate judiciary became the major source for Supreme Court nominees, in part because that experience was deemed relevant and afforded insights on nominees' views.

[UConn James]

Not that I disagree with you (I don't)...but technically there's no privacy clause in the Constitution. 

 

Though well there should be.

464406[/snapback]

 

Well, I wrote it the way I did b/c the "Privacy clause" for many generally refers to the 9th Amendment, which some people have a problem with b/c it is in itself vague. But the language of which harks back to the section that says barring federal or state laws, (or the unconstitutionality of such) decisions are left 'to the people'. This is what RvW was decided on; that federal or state law banning abortion should not exist b/c it's an issue that falls on the individual to decide. Some might call it roundabout, but that's what the high court's opinion was (I forget, was it written by SDO?) and it would behoove people to realize that these things DO. NOT. CHANGE. EASILY. so why all the caterwauling from the right who refuse to accept the law?

 

And, more broadly speaking, there is privacy inherent in the Constitution, just that Jefferson did not specifically spell it out that "no person shall snoop, skeeve or otherwise interfere in another's personal matters" in its own seperate amendement. And that's the problem we have with people who MUST have everyone's morals and worldview be exactly like their own, kooks who think it's all right to use their telephoto lenses, etc. The Roberts court is going to be defined, I think, in how it rules on issues of privacy in our modern world and with our modern technology; in a word, continue down the path Brandeis and Warren started w/ that law review article.

[Mickey]

You're oversimplifying it because there's case law to consider.  The Constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum. 

 

And it may be that her experience with case law on constitutional issues is significant enough that she is qualified.  Or not.  There's nothing overt in her experience that would suggest so.  That's why the nomination is such a questionable one and why, as Mickey suggests, it's wise to wait for the hearings.

464346[/snapback]

Well, since I suggested it, it must be a raving partisan piece of drivel. Please stop this annoying habit of yours of addressing the merits of an idea rather than your personal opinions of its source.

 

Seriously, she is another mystery candidate and despite her lack of reputation outside of Texas, for all we know she might have the makings of another Cardozo. I do hope that she resigns her membership in the Katherine Harris Church of Excessive Make-Up before the televised hearings to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

[UConn James]

Not necessarily.  The "ability to grasp" case law is significantly different from applying a comprehensive knowledge of it.  Similar to how we all have the "ability to grasp" offensive playcalling on the football field, but that doesn't mean we have enough of a comprehensive knowledge of football to actually call the plays.

 

But then, I'm also someone who believes that 80% of anything is common sense.  I'll be satisfied with someone who can realize that eminent domain should NOT allow the government to take property from one private entity and give it to another.

464415[/snapback]

 

Agreed. When an issue is before the SC, it is usually of a very broad scope and not dealing in the minutia of "well, a California probate court ruled that blah blah blah." The comprehensive knowledge factor? Meh. It's nice for a judge to have it, but I don't think it's necessarily a requirement to judge individual cases. That's why the justices have law clerks --- to do comprehensive research on the issue's past and to flesh out the arguments of each side. Ms. Miers is going to have a lot of night table reading to catch up and I don't envy the row she's going to hoe, but I don't see why she's inherently a bad choice b/c of this.

[UConn James]

I do hope that she resigns her membership in the Katherine Harris Church of Excessive Make-Up before the televised hearings to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

464444[/snapback]

 

That mascara was on thick yesterday. But I suppose it's enough that she doesn't use that deep blue eye shadow that is so favored among Southern conservative women.

[erynthered]

I do hope that she resigns her membership in the Katherine Harris Church of Excessive Make-Up before the televised hearings to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

464444[/snapback]

 

 

And what were you saying last week about posts like this???

 

 

 

This is what I meant when I called you transparent.

 

 

Hypocrite

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Agreed. When an issue is before the SC, it is usually of a very broad scope and not dealing in the minutia of "well, a California probate court ruled that blah blah blah." The comprehensive knowledge factor? Meh. It's nice for a judge to have it, but I don't think it's necessarily a requirement to judge individual cases. That's why the justices have law clerks --- to do comprehensive research on the issue's past and to flesh out the arguments of each side. Ms. Miers is going to have a lot of night table reading to catch up and I don't envy the row she's going to hoe, but I don't see why she's inherently a bad choice b/c of this.

464454[/snapback]

 

I don't consider her a bad choice because of that either. In fact, I don't consider her a bad choice at all...or a good one. Just "questionable", in that there's a LOT of questions surrounding her.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I don't know much about Harriet Miers other than I wouldn't want to date her. 

 

[Mickey]

And what were you saying last week about posts like this???

This is what I meant when I called you transparent.       

Hypocrite

464476[/snapback]

Ahhhh....but she is a public figure my friend. Now if I wrote that you wore too much make-up than I should be censured.

 

Seriously, had you ever heard of her before yesterday? I know I hadn't.

[erynthered]

Ahhhh....but she is a public figure my friend.  Now if I wrote that you wore too much make-up than I should be censured. 

 

Seriously, had you ever heard of her before yesterday?  I know I hadn't.

464929[/snapback]

 

 

No, I have not. She's definitely been behind the scenes for a long time. I'll wait to reserve judgment. Though, I suspect she's more right than Roberts.

 

Either way I think Harriot will be confirmed. With no judicial record she can dodge all the questions pretty easy.

 

It's like a Senator running for the Presidency. People look at his record and find out he never shows up to vote for anything. That's hard to overcome.

 

So like Roberts, Harriot will be confirmed. Is Stevens 85?

[blzrul]

No, I have not. She's definitely been behind the scenes for a long time. I'll wait to reserve judgment. Though, I suspect she's more right than Roberts.

 

Either way I think Harriot will be confirmed. With no judicial record she can dodge all the questions pretty easy.

 

It's like a Senator running for the Presidency. People look at his record and find out he never shows up to vote for anything. That's hard to overcome.

 

So like Roberts, Harriot will be confirmed. Is Stevens 85?

465020[/snapback]

If you want to learn about her, learn about the Dallas City Council. It doesn't matter which one...or when....you really want to sit down some day and watch some tape. It's better than a three-ring circus. My husband lived in Dallas all his life, leans to the right, and is still laughing about this one. He's always said that the Dallas City Council is one of the biggest embarrassments to the city (and there are plenty), right up there with Jerry Jones and Rev. Raley...

 

But I never heard of her. Seeing her described as a "Bush insider" doesn't give warm fuzzies...but that's all anyone seems to know about her besides a history rather devoid of detail.

[erynthered]

If you want to learn about her, learn about the Dallas City Council.  It doesn't matter which one...or when....you really want to sit down some day and watch some tape.  It's better than a three-ring circus.  My husband lived in Dallas all his life, leans to the right, and is still laughing about this one.  He's always said that the Dallas City Council is one of the biggest embarrassments to the city (and there are plenty), right up there with Jerry Jones and Rev. Raley...

 

But I never heard of her.  Seeing her described as a "Bush insider" doesn't give warm fuzzies...but that's all anyone seems to know about her besides a history rather devoid of detail.

465130[/snapback]

 

I think that's why he picked her, she's a relatively unknown. That's the attraction.

BTW, I'd bet the New Orleans city council has it up on the Dallas council by a mile.

[Mickey]

I think that's why he picked her, she's a relatively unknown. That's the attraction.

BTW, I'd bet the New Orleans city council has it up on the Dallas council by a mile.

465170[/snapback]

Unknown and a very loyal friend. I wonder if it is a good thing for the country to have a justice whose loyalty to the President is so strong it rivals their loyalty to the Constitution. Loyalty isn't a universal good and can be anathema to a democracy.