JoshK Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/scotus.miers/index.html I will fully admit I know ZERO about this woman as I haven't even heard of her before, but I was a bit surprised to see she has NEVER been a judge at any level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Ahh, must love the Bush family lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted October 3, 2005 Author Share Posted October 3, 2005 "An outspoken supporter of the Bush administration, she was a leader of its search for potential candidates to fill Supreme Court posts. A White House official said that at the same time, Bush considered her as a nominee without her knowledge." Ahh, yes, a complete supporter of his administration! Just the free-thinking independent open mind I expect from a supreme court justice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Hurry, hurry, hurry, place your Senate vote predictions now for Harriet Mier. The winner wins a free date with Josh to the Republican National Convention or a corporate mug with a red white and blue donkey on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 If she's that underqualified, this just has to be a ploy to paint the Democrats as obstructionists when they rightly refuse to let her nomination pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/scotus.miers/index.html I will fully admit I know ZERO about this woman as I haven't even heard of her before, but I was a bit surprised to see she has NEVER been a judge at any level. Nor had Earl Warren. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/scotus.miers/index.html I will fully admit I know ZERO about this woman as I haven't even heard of her before, but I was a bit surprised to see she has NEVER been a judge at any level. The Bush Administration counts that as her greatest asset. She has almost no public record. Bush knows everything he needs to know about her, but Congress will only find out what Bush wants them to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/scotus.miers/index.html I will fully admit I know ZERO about this woman as I haven't even heard of her before, but I was a bit surprised to see she has NEVER been a judge at any level. Nor had Earl Warren. nor did rehnquist - and for the majority of its history the court has been filled w/ judges w/ no previous judicial experience. i don't know that that's a good thing necessarily, but as court's tend to be defined by tradition, it makes sense that any given nominee will lack previous black robe credentials. the only thing that worries me so far is the SMU background - my cousin went to SMU - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blake Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/scotus.miers/index.html I will fully admit I know ZERO about this woman as I haven't even heard of her before, but I was a bit surprised to see she has NEVER been a judge at any level. Nor had Earl Warren. He;d been the Attorney general in California though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 nor did rehnquist - and for the majority of its history the court has been filled w/ judges w/ no previous judicial experience. i don't know that that's a good thing necessarily, but as court's tend to be defined by tradition, it makes sense that any given nominee will lack previous black robe credentials. OK, but what qualifies her to be a supreme court judge? Roberts argued many cases before the court, and served as a federal judge, as I recall. Another way to look at it is to compare her qualifications with those of the other sitting judges on the court. If she is the least qualified of them all, then the Dems have a strong case to reject her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted October 3, 2005 Author Share Posted October 3, 2005 Maybe I am reading wrong, but it seems Kaska and I agree. I don't really see anything in her resume that puts her in any sort of "qualified" category for a supreme court position. Furthermore, the fact that she is a "supporter" of the current administration is pretty whack. I'd like judges to at least *seem* non-political. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Maybe I am reading wrong, but it seems Kaska and I agree. I don't really see anything in her resume that puts her in any sort of "qualified" category for a supreme court position. Furthermore, the fact that she is a "supporter" of the current administration is pretty whack. I'd like judges to at least *seem* non-political. It does look very bad to nominate a friend that doesn't appear qualified. A cronyism double-whammy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 "It's not as bad as Caligula putting his horse in the Senate." - Richard Brookhiser, National Review Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Maybe I am reading wrong, but it seems Kaska and I agree. I don't really see anything in her resume that puts her in any sort of "qualified" category for a supreme court position. Furthermore, the fact that she is a "supporter" of the current administration is pretty whack. I'd like judges to at least *seem* non-political. It does look very bad to nominate a friend that doesn't appear qualified. A cronyism double-whammy. I see the unicorns are continuing to work their magic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 "It's not as bad as Caligula putting his horse in the Senate." - Richard Brookhiser, National Review Maybe the horse was more qualifed than the average senator romanus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 At least she's a lawyer. Theoretically any lawyer can become a judge, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 In most statesyou have to be a lawyer to be a Superior Court Judge but some do not require it for district court. It is not a requirement for SCOTUS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 But is there anywhere where lawyers are PROHIBITED from becoming judges? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 At least she's a lawyer. Theoretically any lawyer can become a judge, right? There are no constitutional qualifiers for a Supreme Court Justice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ireneo_Funes Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 "It's not as bad as Caligula putting his horse in the Senate." - Richard Brookhiser, National Review Maybe the horse was more qualifed than the average senator romanus? Suetonius, the source for most of the wacky stories about the Caesars, says that Caligula merely intended to make his favorite horse consul. It didn't actually happen. Whatever. It was a long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Nice to be living in an era when we should be thankful that the president doesn't nominate, say, a goat to be Supreme Court Justice.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ireneo_Funes Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Bush the Younger is more of a Nero type, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.