Miers.. Constitutionalist?

[Hangtime]

Damn, I sure hope so. She's making constitutionalist noises at her nomination acceptance speach...

Anybody think she'll wind up confirmed?

[Jackal1]

She`s in.

[oboe]

She has no judicial experience whatsoever.    Her main qualification seems to be that she is loyal Bushie, having ridden his coattails from Dallas to D.C.

Lifetime appointment as a judge to the highest court in the land after never having made a single judicial decision.   What a tremendous slap in the face it is to all the well-qualified, earnest candidates out there.   Merit apparently means squat.

[lazs2]

so is she a constitutionalist?

lazs

[Lizard3]

Originally posted by oboe
She has no judicial experience whatsoever.    Her main qualification seems to be that she is loyal Bushie, having ridden his coattails from Dallas to D.C.

Lifetime appointment as a judge to the highest court in the land after never having made a single judicial decision.   What a tremendous slap in the face it is to all the well-qualified, earnest candidates out there.   Merit apparently means squat.

Maybe she's the sacrificial lamb put out there to draw all the lib froth, then withdrawn. The real one to come forth later.

Who knows.

Any one see the interview of a SCJ yesterday by snuffelup...er Stephanoplipolous? Forget which one it was, but the guy came across as a strict re-constructionist.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Rhendquist had never been a judge either.

There have been several justices appointed who were never judges before.

So it isn't like no one had ever nominated a non judge before, no new ground has been broken.

I don't necessarily agree with the choice.

I'd have preferred any of several others.

The other probable female/minority choices (since when is the U.S. Supreme Court a place to practice "affirmative action"?)
would have probably been fillibustered half to death, and both sides seemed at least somewhat willing to accept this one.

I'd like to have seen Bush nominate one of the previously fillibustered nominees for the lower court positions just to see the fight. Never mind the fact that they'd probably be better choices.

The current political scene has become such a useless and pointless quagmire that little good can come from it anyway. Why bother with a huge fight? Much as I think there is a need, I find myself wondering if anything worthwhile would come from it.

[oboe]

Originally posted by Lizard3
Maybe she's the sacrificial lamb put out there to draw all the lib froth, then withdrawn. The real one to come forth later.

Who knows.

It seems to me anyone who is against blatant cronyism, whether they be liberal, conservative or somewhere in the middle, should be put off by Bush's choice here.    It's almost as if he really doesn't take his responsibilities seriously.

If she really is just a dummy nomination, with the real one to come later, then why?    Wouldn't whipping up a liberal froth unify them and possibly prime a spirit of indignation against the real, forthcoming nominee?    Why the ruse and waste of time?   Bush has asked us all to conserve and be more efficient so I don't appreciate him wasting the government's time and resources on a joke nomination, if that's what it is.

I'm disappointed for the number of truly well-qualified, constructionist judges out there who deserve an opportunity to distinguish themselves and crown their careers with an appointment to the SC.

And what a public confirmation of the cynical notion that "its not what you know, its who you know".    Put yourself in the role of a gradeschool teacher and explain this nomination to your bright-eyed students who've just finished the morning's recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.    What do you say to them?

EDIT: Sorry Virgil, I missed your post.    Thanks for pointing out that Rehnquist had never been a judge either.    I'm sorry to hear its not a precedent.    What a goofy situation.   You'd think judicial experience would be a requirement for a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court.

[Hangtime]

I wonder about the validity of the 'blatant cronyism' being a big deal.

How many of us have gotten jobs based on knowing somebody that reccomended us?

Dunno if it's applicable as a 'bad thing'.. just something that 'is'. It's how the political and job market system works, yes?

[oboe]

Well, not me.   I've had only 2 jobs in my adult working life, and neither of them came as a result of being the friend of the boss or hiring manager.    I don't say that to brag, but that is simply what 'IS' in my experience (or was, as it were.)    I was qualified, and did OK in the interview.   But neither came with a guarantee of lifetime employment, or the responsibilities inherent to the position of SC justice.

If you want to say cronyism is neither right nor wrong, because it just 'is', I guess that's your prerogative.    But it seems like an empty argument to me, because we could also say "the way things are in the world are just the way things are", but certainly that doesn't imply that there are no 'bad' things going on?   Does it?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Rhendquist had never been a judge either.

There have been several justices appointed who were never judges before.

So it isn't like no one had ever nominated a non judge before, no new ground has been broken.

IIRC, O'Connor had never been a judge either.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Rhendquist had never been a judge either.

 

DING DING DING We have a winner

[oboe]

from about.com
1974 Sandra Day O'Connor was elected to a position of trial judge for Maricopa County and 5 years later was appointed by then Governor Bruce Babbitt to the Court of Appeals.

So O'Connor had served as a judge, and though nominated by Reagan, had not served as his personal counsel.

If the PIC of Air Force One was an appointed position, do you think they should limit themselves to candidates who are pilots with multiengine ratings?  Or should somebody who once worked at an airline but is a personal friend of the President get the nod?

[Bodhi]

Oboe,

Just for you.....

[oboe]

) Thanks, Bodhi!    That cheese looks to be higher quality than mine whine, or is that Lindberger?

Listening to news radio and apparently there are no rigid qualifications for the position of SC justice.    The President can nominate anyone he wants.   Historically, about 20% of nominees have had no judicial experience -- and their lack of judicial perspective implies a perspective from a different direction.   Maybe that's not all bad.

Cronyism makes no sense to me; it's foolishness evidenced most recently with Michael Brown's failure and removal as head of FEMA, but as Hangtime says, it is something that just 'is'.

Once again I can see I'm chopping but no chips are flyin' so I'll call it a day.

all.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by oboe
It seems to me anyone who is against blatant cronyism, .

That term "blatant cronyism" cracks me up. Every single President hires and appoints the people who support him, translated they are all cronies.  The milage the press and dems have been getting out of their talking points is breathtaking.