Miers\' qualification
 

I just listened to a Bush news conference. Gee Duh attempted to lay out Harriet Miers' qualifications. Here's what they are as near as I can tell:

1) She was the first woman head of the Dallas bar
2) She was the first woman hired in her law firm
3) She was the first woman partner in her law firm
4) She has worked closely with Bush for 20 years
5) Bush knows that her "philosophy" won't change

Take from that what you will.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just listened to a Bush news conference. Gee Duh attempted to lay out Harriet Miers' qualifications. Here's what they are as near as I can tell:

1) She was the first woman head of the Dallas bar
2) She was the first woman hired in her law firm
3) She was the first woman partner in her law firm
4) She has worked closely with Bush for 20 years
5) Bush knows that her "philosophy" won't change

Take from that what you will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to hazard a guess...

If we starting hearing Miers saying things like "Executive branch is and should be the most powerful branch" or "The President and I have discussed the proper role of the judiciary" then I'm calling her a "red herring" to get another person through...

Lets hope....

She is mediocre at best. I can't for the life of me figure out why he picked her.

-Gryph

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

Miers is quite qualified.

The only thing that really matters is her intelligence, her ability to write opinions, and negotiate with the others on the court.

There is a myth that you need federal court experience before moving to the Supreme Court, but the truth is, the Circuit Courts have often just been used as a holding station for potential Supreme Court nominees.

Do you know how long justices served on the Circuit Court before moving up to the Supreme Court?

Souter: 1 month
Thomas: 1 year
Roberts: 2 years
Scalia: 4 years
Stevens: 5 years
O'Connor: none
Rehnquist: none

Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer served longer, but in the case of Breyer and Ginsburg the reason they were stuck there is because they were appointed by Carter but then had to wait out the 12 years of Reagan/Bush before another Democrat took office. Extra time spent waiting to be elevated does not equal additional real experience.

Being on the lower court doesn't mean that much.

Miers has experience as an elected politician, a trial lawyer, an ABA leader, and various government lawyer and advisor jobs. She is as qualified as any of the others on the court. Read their biographies and you will see that other than their brief lower court stays, the others mostly worked as trial lawyers and government lawyers for their entire careers - just the same thing that Miers did.

Miers is a stealth candidate because she has no paper trail, but her actual experience is equal to any of the others when they were added to the court.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
Extra time spent waiting to be elevated does not equal additional real experience.

Being on the lower court doesn't mean that much.

[/ QUOTE ]

A seat on a United States Court of Appeals "doesn't mean that much"?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Wow, that's breathtaking.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
Miers has experience as an elected politician, a trial lawyer, an ABA leader, and various government lawyer and advisor jobs. She is as qualified as any of the others on the court. Read their biographies and you will see that other than their brief lower court stays, the others mostly worked as trial lawyers and government lawyers for their entire careers - just the same thing that Miers did.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right that many justices have not been federal judges previously. But many of them did have some judging experience and, more importantly, almost all were widely considered to be top-notch legal minds. This is simply not true of Miers, and the response from conservative legal circles shows it. I'm not qualified to judge her legal acumen and neither are you. But why are there so many people, both liberal and consevative, saying this nomination is a travesty of cronyism and that she is clearly not among the 100 most qualified conservatives to be on the court? Have you heard any astute legal commentator actually say that she deserves this position on merit?

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
Have you heard any astute legal commentator actually say that she deserves this position on merit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should we expect them to? Apellate judges are similar to professors, they spend most of their time writing, creating opinions to justify their decisions. A legal expert can't judge your ability to do this unless they can read what you write.

The point of a stealth candidate is that there is nothing (or little) available to the public to read that they have written.

If the best mind in the world writes in the forest, and no one reads what he writes, is he still the best mind in the world?

Miers is correctly classified "insufficient data to determine her ability." Bush and his close aides know her true talents, your TV and law school "legal experts" are in the dark. They can not honestly say she is not in the top 100 legal minds, because they just Don't Know!

We can wring our hands at our lack of information, or we can just wait and see if Bush and his top aides have made a good choice.

Personally, having read her biography as well as the other justices, I have a strong feeling she will end up being a sharper legal mind than at least half of the court that she will be serving on.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why should we expect them to? Apellate judges are similar to professors, they spend most of their time writing, creating opinions to justify their decisions. A legal expert can't judge your ability to do this unless they can read what you write.

The point of a stealth candidate is that there is nothing (or little) available to the public to read that they have written.

If the best mind in the world writes in the forest, and no one reads what he writes, is he still the best mind in the world?

Miers is correctly classified "insufficient data to determine her ability." Bush and his close aides know her true talents, your TV and law school "legal experts" are in the dark. They can not honestly say she is not in the top 100 legal minds, because they just Don't Know!

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument is akin to me saying, "In a surprise move, Terry Francona has called up his cousin Sal from single-A ball to start game 1 tonight for the Red Sox. It's a bit of a peculiar choice, sort of a "stealth starter." But let's not pass judgement on the decision. None of us have seen Sal pitch and Terry knows his stuff well. The kid could be unhittable!"

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument is akin to me saying, "In a surprise move, Terry Francona has called up his cousin Sal from single-A ball to start game 1 tonight for the Red Sox. It's a bit of a peculiar choice, sort of a "stealth starter." But let's not pass judgement on the decision. None of us have seen Sal pitch and Terry knows his stuff well. The kid could be unhittable!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Tito did something similar to this; isn't Kevin Millar starting at first base this afternoon?

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think Tito did something similar to this; isn't Kevin Millar starting at first base this afternoon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, why not Olerud against the righthander? I don't get it.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, why not Olerud against the righthander? I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tito must have wanted Millar's superior defense.

Seriously though, I think the explanation is that Millar has been good against Contreras over his career; but Millar's a punch-and-judy hitter now, and Contreras is a completely different pitcher. Give me Olerud.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

Ah, blind faith that the powers that be would NEVER do anything that wasnt in the best interest of the people. Forgive me if this seems dumb, but I dont want a stealth anything in the government, especially the courts. All the supreme court canidates should be completely transpartent.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
Miers is correctly classified "insufficient data to determine her ability." Bush and his close aides know her true talents, your TV and law school "legal experts" are in the dark. They can not honestly say she is not in the top 100 legal minds, because they just Don't Know!


[/ QUOTE ]

Bush has given me no reason to trust his judgment in this regard. The fact that she has failed to significantly distinguish herself in her profession to such a degree that "law shool 'legal experts'" do not consider her a quality contender is significant.

[ QUOTE ]
We can wring our hands at our lack of information, or we can just wait and see if Bush and his top aides have made a good choice.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or we can tell our congressmen to confirm only on good information, not on blind faith.

While the president gets to nominate, Congress has a duty in this process as well.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
astute legal commentator

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

The point, in my opinion, is not that she's not unqualified. It's that there are so many other attorneys in this country that are more qualified.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

"As the Rude Pundit (warning: NSFW, so very NSFW) said about John Roberts, George Bush (and Rove, Cheney, et al) knows exactly who Harriet Miers is in nominating her for the Supreme Court. He knows how she's gonna vote on every issue that comes before the court that actually matters to him. Jesus, she was right there for half the cases that she would be asked to decide on, from the torture policy to third-trimester abortions to the Patriot Act to releases of documents to assisted suicide. To not believe that Bush knows is to be played for a fool once again."

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

Wow. Exactly what great things has the Bush administration done that has earned your faith, especially when it comes to nominations? John Bolton, anyone? As soon as anyone, Dem or Repub, fathoms the idea of nominating someone that basically hates the UN to the position of [censored] UNITED NATIONS AMBASSADOR I would immediately cast doubt on any nomination for any position, especially 'stealth' nominations.
[ QUOTE ]
We can wring our hands at our lack of information, or we can just wait and see if Bush and his top aides have made a good choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Waiting and seeing if Bush and his aides have made the right choice has worked out SOOOOO many times that we should do it again when the decision may change the complete makeup and character of the Supreme Court for god knows how long.

There's a reason Bush's approval ratings are in the high thirties.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

but Clinton is a liar.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

You have to understand that Bush is good at getting the type of person he wants in jobs.

Bush wanted Bolton, he was the right person for what Bush wanted to do with the UN. You may not like him, but his standing behind Bolton just shows that he will not be denied in treating the UN the way he wants it treated.

We have to put our own opinions aside, and look at this from Bush's point of view.

He has shown through his lower court appointments what he wants on the courts. I know enough of Bush to conclude therefore that Miers was not a mistake, not a quick decision.

She is qualified, despite the spin out there, and Bush knows what he is doing with appointments. Therefore, I am confident he has got it right, even though I was initially surprised about this pick.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
You have to understand that Bush is good at getting the type of person he wants in jobs.

Bush wanted Bolton, he was the right person for what Bush wanted to do with the UN. You may not like him, but his standing behind Bolton just shows that he will not be denied in treating the UN the way he wants it treated.

We have to put our own opinions aside, and look at this from Bush's point of view.

He has shown through his lower court appointments what he wants on the courts. I know enough of Bush to conclude therefore that Miers was not a mistake, not a quick decision.

She is qualified, despite the spin out there, and Bush knows what he is doing with appointments. Therefore, I am confident he has got it right, even though I was initially surprised about this pick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. In Bush We Trust.

Frank

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lol. In Bush We Trust.

[/ QUOTE ]

A SCOTUS pick is not made for the benefit of those who hate Bush. They disagree with what he wants to accomplish anyway.

You opinion is irrelevant as far as his pick goes. But among those who share his basic goals, he has shown himself to be able to pick the right people to advance those goals.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lol. In Bush We Trust.

[/ QUOTE ]

A SCOTUS pick is not made for the benefit of those who hate Bush. They disagree with what he wants to accomplish anyway.

You opinion is irrelevant as far as his pick goes. But among those who share his basic goals, he has shown himself to be able to pick the right people to advance those goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, in an ideal society, we wouldn't be picking SCOTUS justices based on political idealogy. So while it MAY be a good choice for conservatives, that says nothing as to the actual merit. You speak as if only conservatives backing Bush should even have an opinion on the issue.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

In an ideal society, judges wouldn't be super-legislatures making up law instead of letting Congress and the states make the law.

Like it or not, the court is a political branch of government, and the politicians selected to be on the court are in a way elected indirectly (by the people's choice of President). So Clinton gets to pick liberal justices and Bush gets to pick conservative justices.

I would rather have a court that was not political, but that horse is out of the barn.

Bush promised certain kinds of judges. The people elected him. His only responsibility is to keep his promises, and yes he can ignore what you want - you didn't vote for him.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

But what you said was that non-Bush supporters' opinions on this are irrelevant, which is ridiculous.

And as you said, an ideal society would have less partisan judges. But because of a lack of ambition, no one is willing to try for such a simple concept - 9 moderates on the court. Instead, everyone tries to "balance" it, since it's never quite conservative enough for the right, and never liberal enough for the left.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
he can ignore what you want - you didn't vote for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are way off the mark here. He's supposed to represent all the people, not just those that voted for him.

As for picking SCOTUS nominees based on loyalty to his politics as opposed to qualifications, that goes against everything people from BOTH sides of the aisle say.

-ptmusic

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bush promised certain kinds of judges. The people elected him. His only responsibility is to keep his promises, and yes he can ignore what you want - you didn't vote for him.

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on now. The problem with this is that the UN, the SC and other institutions that are supposed to be non-partisan are being treated as political wings of the Republican party. So Bush wants the UN to be ruled by John Bolton. Someone in his own party was literally in tears speaking out against him on the Senate floor. His duty is to the American people, whether or not him, Karl Rove or anyone else want it to be. The American people do not want Bolton. The American people want transparent nominees. His approval ratings are in the HIGH THIRTIES. It does not take a Yale graduate to understand there's something wrong with capabilities as a decision maker and leader. If you want this guy to make decisions based solely on partisan politics, then you'll have to live with the consequences. It took a lot of hard work and strategic ingenuity for the Republicans to finally take control of the government, capped off with the mother of all approval rating boosters: a war (or two or three). Bush has completely erased everything. But that's good for the liberals. I'd say for every point dropped below a 45% approval rating it will take another year for Republicans to dig themselves out of the hole they're digging. And that's just fine with me.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bush wants the UN to be ruled by John Bolton.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Bolton is just the US representative there. He represents how Bush wants the US to deal with the UN for now. (Namely, to stop letting them run all over us)

The SCOTUS is not non-partisan. It could have been, perhaps should have been, but politics has infested the SCOTUS and people have differences over what the proper judicial philosophy of this country should be. Bush is right to put his view of judicial philosophy on the court, and Clinton was right to put his on. Thats how the system works, like it or not.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

"Miers is correctly classified "insufficient data to determine her ability." Bush and his close aides know her true talents, your TV and law school "legal experts" are in the dark. They can not honestly say she is not in the top 100 legal minds, because they just Don't Know!"

But she has to be confirmed- and the reason she has to be confirmed is he founders wanted a serperation of powers. We are not to rely on Bush's opinion solely, but to have the poeples' representatives take his pick and understand for themselves weather she is qualified or not.

OHhh- and considering its a frickin' lifetime appointment, a "lets wait and see if shes any good" seems a little, how the french say- idiotic.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

"(Namely, to stop letting them run all over us)"

When did the UN ever "run all over us?"

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

Monkey Boy has appointed:

http://images.unseelie.unseelie.us/church_lady.jpg
Church Lady

http://i.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs...__carvey_l.jpg

Daddy must be pleased.

Re: Miers\' qualification
 

I ususally don't resort to tactics like this, but if you honestly believe the UN runs all over us you've got your head completely up your ass. I think Bush's problem with the UN is that he thinks it's ineffective. Not giving in to our every demand and whim is not the equivalent of running all over us. The UN runs over absolutely no one, as it has no enforcement mechanism. The idea of the UN is to foster world unity, not bring the world to our knees. I believe that's a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. It's the UNITED NATIONS. Not the UNITED STATES.