Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, you don't even have to be a lawyer to be a federal judge. Thats just a tradition started by George Washington, not that anyone would think of breaking it.


[/ QUOTE ]

is this really true? i thought only local court elected judges could be without law degrees.

[ QUOTE ]
A bachelor’s degree and work experience usually constitute the minimum requirement for a judgeship or magistrate position. A number of lawyers become judges, and most judges have first been lawyers. In fact, Federal and State judges usually are required to be lawyers. About 40 States allow non lawyers to hold limited-jurisdiction judgeships, but opportunities are better for those with law experience. Federal administrative law judges must be lawyers and pass a competitive examination administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Some State administrative law judges and other hearing officials are not required to be lawyers.

[/ QUOTE ]
source

[ QUOTE ]

How about they wanted to know WHERE she STOOD - on ANYTHING - that's a terrible [censored] requirement for a SCOTUS - jesus - LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]
worked for roberts. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

Don't confuse Article I and Article III judges.

Administrative law judges are employees of federal agencies doing adjudication work. (These are the Article I judges) Congress and the agencies can set up any job requirements they want for these adjudicators, since they are really just agency employees.

Article III judges are the "real" independent federal judiciary including the supreme court and are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The only qualification for them is that they be appointed and confirmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article..._III_tribunals

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

Unsurprising.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]


How about they wanted to know WHERE she STOOD - on ANYTHING -

[/ QUOTE ]

In a perfect world (ha ha ha), where a judge stands on anything is not relevant. A judge should rule on the law, regardless of his or her beliefs, and regardless of the outcome. Many honest and intelligent people agree with the outcome of Roe v. Wade, but admit that it is bad law.

I have heard several screwball Senators recently bemoaning Supreme Court decisions "in favor" of large corporations and "against" the poor, the downtrodden, the working class, etc. That's not the Court's problem, or business. The problem is the inept lawmaking of our esteem legislators who cannot write a law that's constitutional. The Court doesn't (or at least shouldn't) strike down laws because of who "wins" or "loses", but because they are not constitutional. Partisans on both sides of the aisle seem to have a great deal of dificulty with this concept.

The reason to see work product from Harriet Miers is to see if she is at least a competent lawyer, and that she can think and correctly interpret the law. Her position on issues does not matter unless she lets those positions prejudice her decisions. There was no such documentation available on Miers, one way or the other. There was no indication that she was anything but an efficient manager, and a FOW (Friend of W). If W chooses not to present evidence of her legal abilities, that is his choice. And his attorney (whoever that might be [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] ) should have advised him of that potential problem before the nomination. W stuck her out there unsupported, and said trust me. Didn't work.

Roberts got confirmed without presenting his stands on various issues because he made a convincing case that his positions on issues would not affect his interpretation of the law, and because there was an overabundance of evidence and documentation that he was highly qualified.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

If memory serves, the only rule is that they be "learned in the law." Tradition has established that this means that they are attorneys.

Is there a bigger prag?
 

Than Harriet Miers right now?

[ QUOTE ]
"Let's move on," said Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi. "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Is there a bigger prag?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Than Harriet Miers right now?

[ QUOTE ]
"Let's move on," said Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi. "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?"

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

She had her 15 minutes of fame. Thats more than most of us get.

I still remember Haynesworth and Carswell and Bork and D. Ginsburg, do you?

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

Now let's see if my prediction when the nomination first came out will come true...Bush will nominate a VERY conservative justice who the liberals will disdain. When they become vocal in opposition he will cry foul saying that they won't let him pick anyone --- from Miers to the new one, liberals are just a bunch of obstructionists (ignoring, of course, the very vocal criticism from those on the same side of the aisle.)

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
When they become vocal in opposition he will cry foul saying that they won't let him pick anyone --- from Miers to the new one, liberals are just a bunch of obstructionists

[/ QUOTE ]

Conservative groups were the ones strongly against Miers, so I don't see how that would make much sense.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When they become vocal in opposition he will cry foul saying that they won't let him pick anyone --- from Miers to the new one, liberals are just a bunch of obstructionists

[/ QUOTE ]

Conservative groups were the ones strongly against Miers, so I don't see how that would make much sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

There were never any WMD in Iraq, but Cheney said there were. There was no attempt to purchase nuclear materials from Africa, but Bush said there was. The mission was not accomplished in May, 2003, but the Administration said it had been.

I hope that what you say is true, and I hope that people remember what actually happened here. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I will be very pleasantly surprised if it does.

Truth has been a major casualty of the Bush Presidency, even moreso than the Clinton Presidency, and that is saying something.