Taro T Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Looks like Bush will announce tonight at 8:00 Eastern that current White House counsel Harriet Miers as nominee to fill the O'Conner vacancy. Link It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out. You know the cry of cronyism will be heard loud and strong. Also, I expect cries about how she isn't even a judge, even though it appears a few Senators of both parties recommended to Bush to choose someone outside the current judiciary. Dave.
KD in CA Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 In related news, Sen. Schumer announced that he will vote 'no' on Ms. Miers' nomination.
Johnny Coli Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 You know the cry of cronyism will be heard loud and strong. 462631[/snapback] You think? Here's her MSNBC profile: Link Why didn't he just nominate Karl Rove or Andrew card? How can someone that loyal to a sitting president, with no judicial record at all, be an impartial Justice? I'd like to hear what the "independents" on this board think of this selection.
Mickey Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 A mystery candidate. She should show up for the hearings wearing the Riddler's costume, you know, the one with all the question marks on it. Or she could wear a T-shirt that says "My buddy got to be President and all I got is this lousy Supreme Court nomination." I heard she is single, never married in fact. She has no kids and is a real workaholic which can be a good thing. Married to the job I guess. I wonder though what personal perspective she might have or lack. Not that it would have anything at all to do with whether or not she should be confirmed. I'm just curious as to how many "confirmed bachelors" have been on the court and whether that experience invested any of their opinions whith a special insight or in fact, their opinions suffered from lack of insight at the other end. If she was from the left I am sure we would hear all sorts of nasty things about her life as a woman devoted to her career rather than a family. I wonder if the reverse will hold true, will women on the left find her careerism and powerful ambitions to be a plus? Will there be folks on the right who find that kind of personal history to be worrisome? My guess is that the issue will be the elephant in the room. Democrats will be too reticent to tag a woman with being too ambitious or to be critical of a lifestyle choice by a woman which centers on her career. At the same time, I think it would be hard for the Schafly crowd to extoll the virtues of a woman whose entire life begins and ends with the workplace. I think she will be confirmed as easily as was Roberts. Too much of a mystery for anyone to know enough about her to get all worked up over.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 You think? Here's her MSNBC profile: Link Why didn't he just nominate Karl Rove or Andrew card? How can someone that loyal to a sitting president, with no judicial record at all, be an impartial Justice? I'd like to hear what the "independents" on this board think of this selection. 462755[/snapback] I think it's odd. A clear case of cronyism, albiet in its "best" sense (in that Bush chose the best lawyer he was familiar with), but based on her merits...well, she doesn't have a lot, does she? Active in the Texas bar at least, which is probably the best positive I can see about her. The biggest problem with the nomination that I have is that she has no track record to judge, which means that when it comes down to the Inquisition, she'll be judged exclusively on personal and partisan grounds...which makes me wonder if this isn't meant to instigate some sort of partisan reaction to prompt some sort of "Up yours!" to the Senate Democrats, as I certainly don't see a lot of judicial sense in it. As for Miers' suitability for a Supreme Court seat...I wish I could judge her on her own merits instead of Bush's lack thereof...but I can't see where she has anything to suggest her, good OR bad. Like I said, odd...why nominate someone that no one can judge?
slothrop Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 My problem with her is that she is utterly unqualified! This is like a Joel Giambra appointment! She went to Southern Methodist Law School and was NEVER a judge. While there have been several Supreme Court Justices who had no judicial experience, most of them stood out in the area of Constitutional Law. Maybe they were top of their class from HArvard, Yale, Princeton, etc and became a constitutional law scholar. Or, their practice area was so impressive in relevant areas. From what I can tell Meirs has none of these things. SHe was a private attorney and became a political insider. This is disturbing in light of the fact that Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be insulated from the political process.
Mickey Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 I think it's odd. A clear case of cronyism, albiet in its "best" sense (in that Bush chose the best lawyer he was familiar with), but based on her merits...well, she doesn't have a lot, does she? Active in the Texas bar at least, which is probably the best positive I can see about her. The biggest problem with the nomination that I have is that she has no track record to judge, which means that when it comes down to the Inquisition, she'll be judged exclusively on personal and partisan grounds...which makes me wonder if this isn't meant to instigate some sort of partisan reaction to prompt some sort of "Up yours!" to the Senate Democrats, as I certainly don't see a lot of judicial sense in it. As for Miers' suitability for a Supreme Court seat...I wish I could judge her on her own merits instead of Bush's lack thereof...but I can't see where she has anything to suggest her, good OR bad. Like I said, odd...why nominate someone that no one can judge? 462834[/snapback] I am beginning to suspect that ol' George can't resist making a little mischief here and there. This nomination could potentially tick off just about everybody. The right clearly wanted a rock-solid nominee on abortion whose views were pretty will known and who would almost guarantee a filibuster/nuclear option fight. They didn't get that. In that sense, even though this nominee might turn out to be as hostile to Roe as Pat Robertson, this is a defeat for the far right. I think those middle of the roaders who stopped the nuclear option are likely the ones whose views carried the day here. However, for all we know, no such convoluted concerns or intricate political strategy was in play. Maybe he just nominated her because he likes her and thinks the world of her legal abilities without a lot of thought on what she thinks of the Commerce Clause. That isn't meant as a criticism, just a hunch that Bush places a premium on trust and friendship rather than political calculations. Is it really cronyism to go with the people you trust and admire the most? Maybe there is such a thing as "good" cronyism?
KD in CA Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 The right clearly wanted a rock-solid nominee on abortion whose views were pretty will known and who would almost guarantee a filibuster/nuclear option fight. They didn't get that. In that sense, even though this nominee might turn out to be as hostile to Roe as Pat Robertson, this is a defeat for the far right. I think those middle of the roaders who stopped the nuclear option are likely the ones whose views carried the day here. Let's hope so. Moderate conservative = good.
Wacka Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Rheinquist had no prior Federlal court experience.
slothrop Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Rheinquist had no prior Federlal court experience. 462952[/snapback] Wrong, Renquist went to a top teir law school ranking in the op of his class. He then clerked for Justice Jackson - a very prestigous position. Also, as attorney general he was required to work in the federal courts.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Terrible choice. Conservative, Liberal, I don't really care. She just doesn't have the qualifications to sit. Here is hoping the ABA dings her and other Senators fall in line. On a sidenote, here is an interesting note from confirmthem.com on a memo being circulated by her supporters: “As a leader of the bar, Harriet Miers was a fearless and very strong proponent of conservative legal views. She led a campaign to have the American Bar Association end its practice of supporting abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded abortions.” ** no representations as to accuracy.
Mickey Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Wrong, Renquist went to a top teir law school ranking in the op of his class. He then clerked for Justice Jackson - a very prestigous position. Also, as attorney general he was required to work in the federal courts. 462981[/snapback] He cullld aslo splel. You are almost as good a typist as my secretary. Almost.
EC-Bills Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Looks like Bush will announce tonight at 8:00 Eastern that current White House counsel Harriet Miers as nominee to fill the O'Conner vacancy. Link It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out. You know the cry of cronyism will be heard loud and strong. Also, I expect cries about how she isn't even a judge, even though it appears a few Senators of both parties recommended to Bush to choose someone outside the current judiciary. Dave. 462631[/snapback] This nomination makes no sense whatsoever. So in a political context, it makes perfect sense. Ugh.
slothrop Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 He cullld aslo splel. You are almost as good a typist as my secretary. Almost. 463006[/snapback] My secretary can splel. It is why I hired her! LOL!
Bob Lablaw Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Isn't it odd to appoint someone without federal judicial experience to the highest federal court in the country?
OGTEleven Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 I read somewhere that she was on Reid's suggestion list. That ought to ensure that some righties get ticked. Alos, she contributed to the Gore campaign in 88.
Mickey Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Isn't it odd to appoint someone without federal judicial experience to the highest federal court in the country? 463034[/snapback] It should be but it isn't.
Alaska Darin Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Call me crazy but I like the idea of not having 9 people with exactly the same experience and background. It'll shake the foundation, which is probably a pretty good thing, since it's pretty much the way the country came into existance. Or we could keep the status quo.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 However, for all we know, no such convoluted concerns or intricate political strategy was in play. Maybe he just nominated her because he likes her and thinks the world of her legal abilities without a lot of thought on what she thinks of the Commerce Clause. That isn't meant as a criticism, just a hunch that Bush places a premium on trust and friendship rather than political calculations. Is it really cronyism to go with the people you trust and admire the most? Maybe there is such a thing as "good" cronyism? 462920[/snapback] That's why I suggested above it was the "best" kind of cronyism. There's no particular reason to believe he's not picking from a pool of possibilities that he finds qualified, and not choosing the one nominee he knows best and trusts the most. There's also no particular reason to believe he's not challenged by the crossword puzzle on the back of his Cocoa Puffs box, too. Just because he's sincerely presenting who he thinks is the best choice for the position, doesn't make it so. Technically, that, and not for the opportunites for face-time and partisan soundbytes for the senators, is why we have the Senate approval process. Any way you slice it, though, it's an oddball choice. Offering up a judicial nominee with no judicial experience after you've been flayed in the press for having appointed a FEMA director with no emergency management experience?
Bob Lablaw Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Call me crazy but I like the idea of not having 9 people with exactly the same experience and background. It'll shake the foundation, which is probably a pretty good thing, since it's pretty much the way the country came into existance. Or we could keep the status quo. 463170[/snapback] This country came into existence under the leadership of the American aristocracy, which for the most part, was a bunch of really rich guys who came from generational- not self-made- wealth. As to shaking the foundation, I have nothing against that. But I am wary of a candidate with no experience at the level she will be practicing. She has little litigation experience. And no Constitutional experience. Would you put an Arabian horse evaluator in charge of FEMA? Wait. Scratch that. Let me use another example: would you put Stojan in charge of national defense?
Recommended Posts