And the next Supreme Court Nominee is...
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
Wildalaska
Moderator
Why is that?
WilddefendyourpositionAlaska
Wildalaska
Moderator
Just as an aside, Justices who never sat on the bench prior to joining the supreme court include, John Jay, John Marshall, John Evans Hughes, Harlan Stone, Warre Burger, Rehquist, Byron White, William O Douglas, Felix Franfurter and Louis Brandeis
WildsurethereareothersAlaska
WildsurethereareothersAlaska
I was pretty sure he'd pick a woman, but I was expecting Edith Brown Clement or Janice Rogers Brown, either one would have been a better choice.
Why? Both have an established judicial carreer, both are known as strict constructionalists, and both are younger.
Why? Both have an established judicial carreer, both are known as strict constructionalists, and both are younger.
Miers is currently white house counsel. Prior to that she was 2nd in command behind Alberto Gonzalez (former white house counsel and now head of the CIA) and prior to that she was a commissioner for the Texas State Lottery. She IS a licensed atty and has practiced in Texas.
AFAIK, she hasn't practiced in private practice in Washington. She hasn't practiced at the appellate level. She hasn't appeared before SCOTUS in any capacity. She has no record of decisionmaking on controversial issues or any other issues. Her record of being a judicial clerk is unknown but HAD she been one, SOMEONE would be saying so (but there's only silence so make your own decision on this one).
To be fair, she's probably one heck of a good lawyer. She's most likely well educated at a prestigious university. She's got a ton of contacts in high places and she's well known inside the beltway.
To me, that's not enough.
In order to be a SCOTUS justice, one MUST BE someone of "towering intellect". There's no indication of this in Miers. In fact, it could be said that there's the exact opposite since her position could be, and is, viewed as being gained by cronyism. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant to the APPEARANCE that it is. Someone of high intellect wouldn't appear to hold a position based upon nepotism or cronyism but rather would appear to be overqualified no matter what position they held under any commander.
A SCOTUS justice MUST BE a leader or someone who is looked to by others for wisdom. Miers, as I said, is probably a very good atty. However, not every "very good atty" is a leader or has wisdom. In fact, most attys in that category AREN'T leaders or sought for their wise ways. Given that there's no indication in this case either way, the onus is on HER to prove that she is. This burden is one she must shoulder every day and prove every day PRIOR to today. So far there's no indication - that tells me there's nothing there.
Lastly, a SCOTUS justice CANNOT be an "unknown". Choosing such places much power in someone who has never wielded power. When that is the case, the unknown has a tendency to "overuse" the power given to them because they do not understand the implications of the use of power. This is not something that a SCOTUS justice can afford yet Miers is an unknown being proposed for just that situation. Note I'm not saying that a non-judge cannot be chosen. What I'm saying is that an unknown cannot be chosen. Bush could have nominated Ridge, or Juliani, or Janice R. Brown, or even Cheney or a host of other QUALIFIED persons. The choices would have been between known entities differing only in philosophy and viewpoint. As it stands, we get to choose between being in the dark and being in the dark.
Out of all the possible candidates for the job, Miers should not have been on the short list. The fact that she was selected means that she HAS TO HAVE SOMETHING which places her above and ahead of the others who were considered. Had there been such, you know for sure that the White House would be saying so. However, all you get are stmts like: "She has [broken] down barriers to women in the Texas legal profession". That ain't a sufficient qualification for Justice in our Supreme Court the last time I looked.
Of course, all of this and $2 might get you a cuppa coffee.
AFAIK, she hasn't practiced in private practice in Washington. She hasn't practiced at the appellate level. She hasn't appeared before SCOTUS in any capacity. She has no record of decisionmaking on controversial issues or any other issues. Her record of being a judicial clerk is unknown but HAD she been one, SOMEONE would be saying so (but there's only silence so make your own decision on this one).
To be fair, she's probably one heck of a good lawyer. She's most likely well educated at a prestigious university. She's got a ton of contacts in high places and she's well known inside the beltway.
To me, that's not enough.
In order to be a SCOTUS justice, one MUST BE someone of "towering intellect". There's no indication of this in Miers. In fact, it could be said that there's the exact opposite since her position could be, and is, viewed as being gained by cronyism. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant to the APPEARANCE that it is. Someone of high intellect wouldn't appear to hold a position based upon nepotism or cronyism but rather would appear to be overqualified no matter what position they held under any commander.
A SCOTUS justice MUST BE a leader or someone who is looked to by others for wisdom. Miers, as I said, is probably a very good atty. However, not every "very good atty" is a leader or has wisdom. In fact, most attys in that category AREN'T leaders or sought for their wise ways. Given that there's no indication in this case either way, the onus is on HER to prove that she is. This burden is one she must shoulder every day and prove every day PRIOR to today. So far there's no indication - that tells me there's nothing there.
Lastly, a SCOTUS justice CANNOT be an "unknown". Choosing such places much power in someone who has never wielded power. When that is the case, the unknown has a tendency to "overuse" the power given to them because they do not understand the implications of the use of power. This is not something that a SCOTUS justice can afford yet Miers is an unknown being proposed for just that situation. Note I'm not saying that a non-judge cannot be chosen. What I'm saying is that an unknown cannot be chosen. Bush could have nominated Ridge, or Juliani, or Janice R. Brown, or even Cheney or a host of other QUALIFIED persons. The choices would have been between known entities differing only in philosophy and viewpoint. As it stands, we get to choose between being in the dark and being in the dark.
Out of all the possible candidates for the job, Miers should not have been on the short list. The fact that she was selected means that she HAS TO HAVE SOMETHING which places her above and ahead of the others who were considered. Had there been such, you know for sure that the White House would be saying so. However, all you get are stmts like: "She has [broken] down barriers to women in the Texas legal profession". That ain't a sufficient qualification for Justice in our Supreme Court the last time I looked.
Of course, all of this and $2 might get you a cuppa coffee.
Excellent article on the topic from National Review's David Frum at http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/10032005.asp#078263
pax
It's the Supreme Court, stupid. -- popular online sentiment in the days before the last election
pax
It's the Supreme Court, stupid. -- popular online sentiment in the days before the last election
Wildalaska
Moderator
Pshaw...Rehnquist and Thomas come to mind as recent intellectual average joes
Read the biographies of Supreme Court justices...tell me how many werent"cronies"...Abe Fortas, Warren Burger, Tom Clark come to mind
Why not? Your generalizarions about power are non convincing
WildletsrollAlaska
Now, things get interesting.
Do the Democrats let this one slip by, and get accused by their constituents of kowtowing to President Bush and being soft on the Republicans? There is a large part of the Democrat Party who wants their elected officials to fight President Bush tooth-and-nail on everything, and who won't look kindly upon being kind to the Republicans, what with midcycle elections coming up.
Or do they refuse to confirm her, bringing the so-called 'nuclear option' back on the table, and allowing the Republicans to point at the Democrats and opine, "The Democrats turned down Harriet Miers because she's a woman" while going into the mid-cycle election.
Of course, if the Democrats refuse to confirm this candidate, then the next candidate tapped by President Bush has that much better a chance of being confirmed -- either through the 'nuclear option', or by Democrats trying to save bi-partisan face.
Might be fun to watch.
LawDog
Do the Democrats let this one slip by, and get accused by their constituents of kowtowing to President Bush and being soft on the Republicans? There is a large part of the Democrat Party who wants their elected officials to fight President Bush tooth-and-nail on everything, and who won't look kindly upon being kind to the Republicans, what with midcycle elections coming up.
Or do they refuse to confirm her, bringing the so-called 'nuclear option' back on the table, and allowing the Republicans to point at the Democrats and opine, "The Democrats turned down Harriet Miers because she's a woman" while going into the mid-cycle election.
Of course, if the Democrats refuse to confirm this candidate, then the next candidate tapped by President Bush has that much better a chance of being confirmed -- either through the 'nuclear option', or by Democrats trying to save bi-partisan face.
Might be fun to watch.
LawDog
Personally, I think this one will go pretty much like Roberts did. The Dem's will act tough to impress their base, but she'll get bipartisan support and be confirmed.
Which makes me concerned. To me, its a stinging indictment when Chuck Schumer says "It could've been a lot worse." (heard that quoted on the Laura Ingram show.)
I would feel much more comfortable with someone that Schumer really hates.
OTOH, she's largely an unknown. So she might be good??? But I'd feel more comfortable if it was someone we KNOW is good.
Which makes me concerned. To me, its a stinging indictment when Chuck Schumer says "It could've been a lot worse." (heard that quoted on the Laura Ingram show.)
I would feel much more comfortable with someone that Schumer really hates.
OTOH, she's largely an unknown. So she might be good??? But I'd feel more comfortable if it was someone we KNOW is good.
I too heard the Schumer quote and thought Bush had given in to the pressure. However, I just posted this link in another thread that suggests Miers may be a bit more on the right of the bench than we know:
Miers Led Bid to Revisit Abortion Stance
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court
Miers Led Bid to Revisit Abortion Stance
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court
Who is Miers? What has she done?
FindLaw has her litigation record. The profile hasn't been updated since November 2004, but she hasn't left her job at the White House yet. Judging from the above, she is at least as qualified as was Souter and Thomas (who was a judge for even less time than Roberts).
Tactics can win battles. But it is Strategy that wins the war.
Anyone who plays Chess or that once popular game, "Stratego," knows this. It is without question that it takes a long-term strategic goal coupled with good tactics to win.
Having said this, it is now abundantly clear that Bush is playing a game of tactics and has no clear goal, no strategy in mind.
This administration seems to be intent upon winning minor tactical victories while consistently failing to plan with long-term strategic goals. These appointments (Roberts and Miers) seem to confirm my criticism of this President.
This particular nomination could go several different ways. I'll leave it to y'all to argue amongst yourselves. My take is that however it goes, it doesn't bode well for conservatives in general or the Republican Party as a whole. Bush is once again stacking the deck with people who are loyal to him and believe in his personal goals of power (Think war on terror and executive power, folks). Whomever gets the nomination (Miers or someone else should she back out or isn't confirmed) will help to turn the Court even more towards Big Business and Big Government.
No matter what happens, expect CRONYISM to be repeated so often as to make one sick. Even if it isn't, the appearance of such will not go away. There are simply too many other real conservatives that are heads above Miers.
The Democrats have two choices. They can let her pass, and suffer the wrath of their base (see next item), or, they can fight like hell (and lose) becoming more irrelevant than they are now.
Should Miers be successful, it is entirely possible that Stevens may decide to step down. With another possible Supreme Court pick, Bush could well stack the Court with neo-cons - and heaven help this country. The Court would then have only Scalia and Thomas to try and check the legislature and the executive.
This would make Roosevelts "New Deal" policies look like ice cream in comparison.
FindLaw has her litigation record. The profile hasn't been updated since November 2004, but she hasn't left her job at the White House yet. Judging from the above, she is at least as qualified as was Souter and Thomas (who was a judge for even less time than Roberts).
Tactics can win battles. But it is Strategy that wins the war.
Anyone who plays Chess or that once popular game, "Stratego," knows this. It is without question that it takes a long-term strategic goal coupled with good tactics to win.
Having said this, it is now abundantly clear that Bush is playing a game of tactics and has no clear goal, no strategy in mind.
This administration seems to be intent upon winning minor tactical victories while consistently failing to plan with long-term strategic goals. These appointments (Roberts and Miers) seem to confirm my criticism of this President.
This particular nomination could go several different ways. I'll leave it to y'all to argue amongst yourselves. My take is that however it goes, it doesn't bode well for conservatives in general or the Republican Party as a whole. Bush is once again stacking the deck with people who are loyal to him and believe in his personal goals of power (Think war on terror and executive power, folks). Whomever gets the nomination (Miers or someone else should she back out or isn't confirmed) will help to turn the Court even more towards Big Business and Big Government.
No matter what happens, expect CRONYISM to be repeated so often as to make one sick. Even if it isn't, the appearance of such will not go away. There are simply too many other real conservatives that are heads above Miers.
The Democrats have two choices. They can let her pass, and suffer the wrath of their base (see next item), or, they can fight like hell (and lose) becoming more irrelevant than they are now.
Should Miers be successful, it is entirely possible that Stevens may decide to step down. With another possible Supreme Court pick, Bush could well stack the Court with neo-cons - and heaven help this country. The Court would then have only Scalia and Thomas to try and check the legislature and the executive.
This would make Roosevelts "New Deal" policies look like ice cream in comparison.
Janice Rogers Brown
i would of been VERY HAPPY with Janice Rogers Brown, but NOooooooo Bush couldnt go with a real conservative because thats not what he is. grrr neo-con
at least Miers isnt a blatant liberal... and there is a chance she could be like scalia *heres to hoping at least
i would of been VERY HAPPY with Janice Rogers Brown, but NOooooooo Bush couldnt go with a real conservative because thats not what he is. grrr neo-con
at least Miers isnt a blatant liberal... and there is a chance she could be like scalia *heres to hoping at least