Miers named nominee to Supreme Court
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/...wh/bush_scotus

Harriet Miers was just named as President Bush's nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Let the debate begin.

ETA: I can't believe I spelled nominee wrong in the title. Moe.ron, are you able to fix that for me?

With no record, its hard to say(for me anyway).

I'm sure her confirmation hearing will be interesting, to say that least.

The confirmation is going to be interesting, with both sides trying to figure out where exactly she stands.

Horrible horrible choice.

Something from 2004 NY Times.

David Frum on the nomination:

Link to the Article

"Her appointment reflects the president's determination to promote longtime members of his inner circle to critical positions for his second term."

I will wait and try to learn more about Ms. Miers before making a decision on how I feel about this nomination, however, the quote above underlines one of the things I dislike about President Bush.

Simply put, it's cronyism.

Yes. Is this going to be much better than when he appointed his buddy with no relevant experience to head FEMA?

I think most of the lawyers on this board are more qualified than her.

I'm concerned that she has no judicial experience...Being a judge is a lot different from being a lawyer.

It's politics and it's definitely not one-sided.

-Rudey

Defend this position.

-or-

Since it's hyperbole, at least give us a rundown of what particular attributes Ms. Miers lacks that are required for the job. Discussion, people.

In Bush's nomination speech, he mentioned that she is not the first SCJ to not have experience as a judge (I believe he mentioned 35 others have not).

I haven't verified this but did anyone else hear this? I was getting ready for work and listening at the same time so I'm not sure if I misunderstood or what.

I thought that was interesting.

Is it hyperbole? There are several attorneys on this board who have clerked in more prominent positions than her.

She lacks judicial experience, which I think is acceptable IF you are an amazing legal scholar (she isn't) or have an amazing background of cases tried (she doesn't). While I may not like the viewpoints of Scalia or Roberts, they were QUALIFIED to sit on the court. This woman is not any more qualified for the Supreme Court than a managing partner at a firm down the street. She has no significant and unique legal experience.

Agree with this opinion.

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.

For the black race to matter more in American politics, you need to vote more for Republican candidates.

That's not a joke.

When you're split more evenly among parties, those politicians tend to offer you more to get the balance of the population to swing in their favor.

So the next time you are voting, remember that, and vote Republican ;)

-Rudey

Is that the way rich white men do it? :) lol

The only problem is that voting Republican means voting for a platform that enforces negative stereotypes against us. Remember Bill Bennett?

AfAms are actually a quite conservative cultural group, particularly those who have escaped poverty. The issue, however, is
1) many of the older AfAms who have escaped poverty still remember it and its stigma and can't bring themselves to vote for a party that blames the poor instead of helps it , and
2) we all feel the effects of racism and just can't vote for a party that wants to pin the problms of America (many of which are the result of poverty --not race-- or lifestly issues we want nothing to do with anyway) on us (AfAms on the whole are quite homophobic).

A lot (respectively speaking) of AfAms voted for Bush simply because of the gay marriage issue, but none of his appointees were appointed with any thought of us in mind.

It is hard to buy into the idea of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps when all the good jobs seem to go to cronys. I don't mind a hypocrit, but know what you are.

I myself, get more and more conservative as I age. I will be taxed out the wazoo if I take my law firm job offer and my parents already are. I have lived in DC but have claimed TX as my state of residency for the past 2 years since we don't have income tax. I am married and don't believe in divorce. I am a Christian and honeslty believe family values are important, but honestly I don't really care about what goes on in someone else's bedroom. Nevertheless, despite my conservative or at least moderate stance on many issues I cannot vote Republican because an AfAm (I prefer American Black since I have never been to Africa, know no parts of it, and am just as American as you, but I digress) I know that Republicans still see me as a criminal.....now why would I support that?

What AfAms need is not to vote Republican or Democrat for that matter- we're only 13% fo the population, we're not gonna affect change either way. What we need to do is keep our money in our communities and start our own businesses. Right now Mobil oil could buy up the top 100 black businesses with the money it has liquid...and still have more left over. We need to get on that level. I am so over racism- who cares- be a racist- I know in this country money talks. We need to stop working for corporations and start corporations.

WE need to go back to the days of Greenwood, OK and that way, if we need political change we can forget voting, and just do like Ford and Mobil Oil do, fund campaigns. Voting is bull sh*t unless there are enough of you to matter, Mobil Oil and its shareholders constiute a small portion of the electorate, but they sure do run sh*t. That is what we need to do. FUND THE CAMPAIGNS..money buys influence.

That is where realy change lies. That is why Condoleeza is in the Cabinet- there is an oil tanker named after her.

Probably. If the stupid people of every race didn't vote so often for the Democrats, I'm sure they could take advantage of it as well.

-Rudey

Politics isn't about good vs. evil. To say the Democrats support your platform or that they are not racist is more than a joke.

Again, split votes tend to attract more favors from politicians.

As for money, which is a different matter, I don't see a Black business ever being created to compete with Exxon Mobil unless it magically finds a way to make fuel out of sand. But you can buy into Exxon at any point since a corporation is nothing more than its shareholders (citizens).

And if you do have money to donate, just don't donate it to one party. Because when Al Sharpton or John Kerry loses, you have nothing and the guy that donated to George Bush has a lot.

-Rudey

take advantage of what? an end to a government safety net? tax breaks for the rich? a polluted environment? corporate welfare? government meddling in people's private sex lives and birth control choices? limited civil liberties? and now, thanks to Bush, exorbitant government spending and an out of contol deficit?

Yea, you are definately right, I should definately start taking advantage of that :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rudey
[B]

As for money, which is a different matter, I don't see a Black business ever being created to compete with Exxon Mobil unless it magically finds a way to make fuel out of sand. But you can buy into Exxon at any point since a corporation is nothing more than its shareholders (citizens).

-Rudey

We can agree to disagree here, because I believe we can do anything whites can do. I don't buy into the we're inferior stuff.


Now the rest I agree with, kind of. But money, while different, is wat more important than voting- this is a capitalist country.

Again, if really stupid people want to vote for a Democrat candidate, go ahead.

-Rudey
--I'm sure griping on Greekchat.com is almost as good as having your candidate win the election.

I don't know what race you are*, but no matter how disgusting I
think what Bush has done is, point still remains that whatever it is AfAms are "taking advantage" of right now is NOT working. There are still a lot of us below the poverty line, still seen as criminals, etc.. and although politics is a dirty game...we need to play it.

*I only brought up race because I was only addressing what what AfAms needed to take advantage of when Rudey replied.

Do AfAms have obsessions with Japanese cartoons like Hello Kitty?

-Rudey