Miers.. Constitutionalist?

[Krusher]

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

Anybody think she'll wind up confirmed?

She will be confirmed.

I don't like her as a choice based on her backing of Judge Barefoot Sanders forced redistricting. It changed the dallas city council from one of the most effective to one of the biggest jokes in the country.

A good article from Law.com

It covers her resume

[Hangtime]

I'm not convinced oboe is wrong.. just trying to look at it from the other side.

If I had a freind recommend a guy for a job working for me vs some guy off the street with paper credentials, and given that the guy would be involved in something very very important to me, guess which I'd hire first.

Yes, I'd consider the 'guy off the street', but the guy known to my friend that had a glowing reccomendation certainly has a 'leg up'.

And, that's how it works, most places.

Not saying it's 'right'.. just that it 'is'.

[oboe]

Glad you found it amusing, Krusher.  

I did use 'blatant' intentionally, because this appointment is not just for some undersecretary position in a nondescript federal agency in the executive branch, but rather a lifetime appointment to the top level of the judicial branch.    The position is considered important enough to warrant the attention of the Senate, who are to give 'advice and consent' on nominations.    So in that sense it strikes me as sortof extreme, in-your-face cronyism.    

Although, at least the Senate will have a say.   It's my understanding that some conservatives are more unhappy with her nomination than some liberals.

I'm kind of interested to see Toad weigh in on this - after all, he thought Robert's qualifications were a little light for an SC justice.    And Miers has no judicial experience at all.

EDIT: I just skimmed the article referenced in Law.com, and I don't think its flattering toward her aptitude for being a SC Justice.   In fact, I'd go so far to say that it's actually critical.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by oboe
Glad you found it amusing, Krusher.  

I did use 'blatant' intentionally, because this appointment is not just for some undersecretary position in a nondescript federal agency in the executive branch, but rather a lifetime appointment to the top level of the judicial branch.    The position is considered important enough to warrant the attention of the Senate, who are to give 'advice and consent' on nominations.    So in that sense it strikes me as sortof extreme, in-your-face cronyism.    

Although, at least the Senate will have a say.   It's my understanding that some conservatives are more unhappy with her nomination than some liberals.

I'm kind of interested to see Toad weigh in on this - after all, he thought Robert's qualifications were a little light for an SC justice.    And Miers has no judicial experience at all.

EDIT: I just skimmed the article referenced in Law.com, and I don't think its flattering toward her aptitude for being a SC Justice.   In fact, I'd go so far to say that it's actually critical.

As stated she is not a choice I support.  

I would prefer a judge in their 40's or early 50's who is so hard core, right wing conservative that the mention of his name alone boils the blood of the left.  

Mainly for the entertainment value

[Yeager]

I'd hit it!:noid

[Mighty1]

Originally posted by Yeager
I'd hit it!:noid

That is soooo wrong!


aaagh


must ....get


image.......


OUT  OF MY MIND!:huh

[Silat]

Best Miers quote:
"Bush is the smartest man Ive ever met"

                         

[Rude]

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.

and she's the only one ever to be nominated and to possibly sit on the SC with no prior judicial experience....transparent man.

[Pooh21]

My 1st job was a delivery driving job, good pay, held it until I moved to germany 4 years later. But guess what? My cousin owns the joint, and my Dad was manager at that time, so do you know what I have to say about nepotism? But you also know, that they didnt want to show me favoritism, so i got the crap routes, longest hours, and all that. But still I was consistantly in the top 5 drivers in that company.




So what if she has no legislating from the bench experiance, that is probably a good thing for someone nominated to the SC. Oh and not like there havent been precedents before.


oh and Oboe, most of yer well qualified and earnest canidates need a slap in the face. Preferably with a tuna.

[Toad]

From Encarta:

The Constitution does not specify formal qualifications for membership on the Supreme Court.

From the beginning, though, justices have all been lawyers, and most pursued legal and political careers before serving on the Court. Many justices served as members of Congress, governors, or members of the Cabinet. One president, William Howard Taft, was later appointed chief justice.

Some justices came to the Court from private law practice, and others were appointed from positions as law professors.

Many justices appointed in the second half of the 20th century had experience in the United States courts of appeal and other lower courts.

Only one justice, Charles Evans Hughes, served on the Court twice. President Taft appointed Hughes, then governor of New York, to the Court in 1910. Hughes gave up his Court seat in 1916 to run for president, but he lost in a close race against Woodrow Wilson. In 1930 President Herbert Hoover returned Hughes to the Court as chief justice.

Apparently you guys want to overturn established precedent. Shame, shame. What would happen to Roe v Wade if we started doing that?

[oboe]

Rude,

Not sure I take your meaning, but it has been established that there have been other SC justices without judicial experience.   It's not something I agree with, but do admit the additional perspective of a non-judge on the bench might bring an unexpected or intangible benefit.  .   I stand corrected on the point.

Pooh21,

Thanks, you might be right.

[crowMAW]

Just my opinion, but she is a fantastic choice.  Based on what info is available, it sounds like she has all the qualities that a judge should have...she is very unemotional, exacting, meticulous, process driven.  She will probably be far more moderate than anyone can guess because she won't allow her personal feelings or beliefs to interfere with the judging a case on its merits.

BTW, something like 40% of the  previous SCOTUS Justices have had no previous experience on the bench...including John Marshall, Warren and Rehnquist...some of the greatest jurists to sit on the Supreme Court.

[Hangtime]

I had no idea who she was at 6:00 am this morning. After a whole day of exposue to everything but her menstral cycle I've come to some admittedly pre-mature and/or harsh conclusions.

*woof*

This broad is ugly. Basset hound ugly. I keep seeing video of her while one talking head or another is going on about her courage, record and predelictions and all I'm thinking is 'this mournful lookin old broad looks as courageous and strong as a thorougly worn out hound dog'.

*woof*

Now, an old dog can have tremendous wisdom and paitence. Who knows, mabe it even has it's own teeth and can bite. It'll prolly hunt, but I doubt as well as the fresh young pup that got the top spot.

Now, the dems seem to be smiling like they're enjoying the splash from the sudden arrival of the big dookie in the republican's collective cream of wheat. Perhaps the smiling may garner an instant karma kickback when she shocks both sides by wading in as anti-roe/wade.

Damn, I should drink single malts more often. I'm a mean drunk.

[Nash]

Never heard of her. Dunno a thing about her.

But the wingnuttery is having a total meltdown over it.... so for now, I'm diggin' it.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nash
Never heard of her. Dunno a thing about her.

It's the law of unintended consquences.

Both sides have made such dog and pony shows out of SC nominations that a new method of selection has evolved.