|
|
#1
10-04-2005, 11:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 
|
|
#2
10-04-2005, 11:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#3
10-04-2005, 12:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#4
10-04-2005, 01:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#5
10-04-2005, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#6
10-04-2005, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#7
10-04-2005, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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!"
|
|
#8
10-04-2005, 04:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#10
10-04-2005, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
