Absolutely correct. He just seems to take it to new (or maybe return it to old) heights.

There have to be qualified people for big jobs outside his circle of friends and advisors from Texas.

Very much so. When you're a lawyer, you're automatically a strong advocate of one side. Sure, you have to think about the other side, but moreso just to anticipate the arguments against you and how to defend argainst them. Whereas a judge, on any level, has to carefully consider both sides and do their very best to be neutral.

While I know there have been SC justices without prior judicial experience, I personally would prefer someone with judicial experience- more practical experience being in the judicial mindset. We don't have any evidence to show us her beliefs or judicial philosophy. She can say all she wants, but there's no evidence of her prior actions to back it up. She doesn't have a demonstrated record.

While i'm happy he nominated a female, it appears that he nominated her because she's a female, a lawyer, and a friend. Regardless of political affiliation, those three things aren't enough for putting someone on the bench.

(As a side note, it's not even that I purely am against her right now because of her political party. Hell, i'm on the campaign committee of a Republican judicial candidate here in my county. )

Well, we are here on Greekchat, so let's get to the real question. She went to SMU -- anyone know if she pledged?

I'd compare this experience to learning the mechanics of the judiciary, rather than the skills necessary to excel. Which is easier to acquire later?


I don't actually disagree with you here - it's a subjective argument, so I can accept your rationale, but I'd like to know what you'd like to see in terms of legal scholarship to qualify as 'amazing'.

Also, I'm not sold on an 'amazing background of cases tried' - this is somewhat political, but it also relates to impartiality concerns (as well as blatant conflict of interest, potentially).

ROTFL ! :D

Really? Well let's look at Federal admins since state and city ones are too corrupt to even write about. Every president does it. My favorite are the ambassadors that are chosen. Anyway, let's take a look at some Clinton administration appointees:

Buddy Young (FEMA): His education consisted of a high school diploma and a certificate in public administration from the University of Arkansas.

Craig Livingstone (Chief of White House Security): His security experience consisted of work as a bouncer at nightclubs. Livingstone is best remembered for the mysterious appearance of hundreds of FBI files in the White House.

Sandy "Pants" Berger (National Security Advisor): Berger was rewarded with the key National Security Advisor position for his work getting Clinton into the Oval Office. Prior to that, he was a smooth-operating, smooth-talking Washington lobbyist.

Hillary Clinton: Bill Clinton gave his most ambitious domestic policy initiative to his wife.

Hugh Rodham: Hillary's brother was paid handsomely to fight against the Tobacco giants.

The highest level positions in the Bush admin are filled with very qualified people. FEMA is what really turned on the media spotlight.

-Rudey

With just a little humility, I could actually almost like this Bush guy. My problem with him has always been what I think of as his political conceit and his desire to dictate policy rather than negotiate it -- and to force his Conservative views on those of us who don't agree. We're supposed to have a say in the government as well. What I've underlined below is the way I would like to think of the system working. The Center is where a lot of us are...

From the NY Times:

"The White House is still struggling to recover from its faltering response to Hurricane Katrina. The Republican Party is busily trying to wave away a scent of second-term scandal. The relentlessly bloody insurgency in Iraq continues to weigh heavily on his presidency. And no president can retain his political authority for long if he loses his claim to the center.

"The swagger is gone from this White House," said Charles E. Cook Jr., editor of The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter, citing a litany of other difficulties afflicting the administration, including high gasoline prices and the failure of Mr. Bush's push to overhaul Social Security. "They know they have horrible problems and they came up with the least risky move they could make."

Looked at another way, the choice is much harder to explain. In selecting Ms. Miers, Mr. Bush stepped deeper into a political thicket that had already scratched up his well-tended image of competence, the criticism that he is prone to stocking the government with cronies rather than people selected solely for their qualifications."

As a judicial clerk, you actually draft opinions which are then read, edited and submitted by the judge. It not the same as being the clerk of court who signs off on filing. Most judges can't write every opinion or read every brief. If they did, there would be tons of backlog (which in some states there still is). Judicial clerks help the judge by doing research, summarizing the papers of the parties, and writing draft opinions. Clerking for an appellate or supreme court judge is probably some of the best training you can get without actually serving as a judge.
There is also another aspect to this. Clerkships are generally considered very prestigious, particularly ones with the federal judiciary and the appellate courts. Young lawyers who are hoping for high level jobs in law firms, in academics, or as future judges fight for these positions, even though they pay a fraction of law firm jobs. The fact that she never worked as a clerk means either that she did not have the qualifications to get hired as a clerk or that she was not intending to have that type of career.
I'm not disturbed that she was never a judge before. Many important USSC judges were never judges. John Roberts was never a judge. But Whether you liked John Roberts or not, he was absolutely qualified to be a justice. He went to Harvard Law. He was a former clerk to the chief justice of the USSC. And, he worked for the Solicitor General's office. Compared to the last nominee it is hard to look at her credentials and and believe that she has the best qualifications for the job.

John Roberts WAS a judge on the US Court of Appeals- DC Circuit.

He also clerked for the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit AND Judge Rehnquist on the Supreme Court.

You are right. He was on the D.C. Circuit for a short time. However, I stand by my original point. Many USSC justices weren't judges and it was no big deal. Earl Warren was never a judge and he was a chief justice!

While I read the Times quite a bit, the paper has a strong liberal bias, is involved in the CIA agent case, and is taking this time to go at Bush.

Of course, the funny thing is that the largest critics of this nominee has been the conservatives and not the liberals. If I remember correctly, it was in the same article you quoted from in your post. So isn't it funny that the conservatives are so upset that he's not putting in a strong conservative to supplement the other 2?

-Rudey

I'm quite familiar with the duties of those who clerk for judges.

My point was exactly based upon these duties - which are what I consider the 'mechanical' elements of actually being a judge (i.e. those duties that every judge must perform), rather than the innate skills or traits that I would desire from a Supreme Court Justice (i.e. those things that make a person qualified for the highest court, rather than weekend Jail Court in Polk County, IA).

Does Ms. Mier have this second set of skills? I'm not even close to qualified to determine this - however, my point was that, in my opinion, a person can make up for a lack of experience in the first set by having the second set - but I don't think the converse is true. Again, though, I'm nowhere near qualified to assert this opinion as anything more - although I'm not sure many are (including those actually making the decision, ironically enough).

Has to do with the David Souter. It's almost the same situation. His record provoked no real controversy and very little was known about him.

They worried that Meir might be a liberal judge, just as Souter is.

Weird familiarity:
Souter was appointed by GWB's father.
Souter, like Meir, is a bachelor with no kids.

Yep. Although we don't know how she might vote in the future.

Personally, I hope she will be like Justice O'Connor. I'd rather see some degree of ballance on the court.

I am sad, and almost embarrassed to say, but I honestly don't care. I feel like Ms. Miers and Mr. Roberts (is that his name I already forgot) are about the best someone like me is going to get. At least since I don't know they're going to set out to take away my individual liberties I have some hope.

I know I should care, but I feel as if there is no place in America for people like me anyway. Maybe one day there will be, but right now there is not. In some people's minds I don't even exist: a Black woman from an upper middle class home who earned scholarships to both law and engineering school- yeah right- all they see is statistic. I don't expect Roberts or Miers to better that- so really its almost nonimportant to me because Bush is giving what I'd expect him to give (maybe even a bit better) and what those who gave him the presidency want him to give (or maybe a little less).

Its why I cried after the 2004 election, but I'm all cried out and honestly am over it now.

I just get to work and wait for day I count which isn't really a problem for me because I come from a line of entreprenuers, am a capitalist at heart and know I'll be rich enough some day to buy myself some importance.