Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Cody Dawg · Oct 3, 2005, 08:06 AM

Unbelievable.

I'm sorry, fellow Republicans, but I think that a Supreme Court nominee should have some experience as a judge. SOME.

Maflynn · Oct 3, 2005, 08:18 AM

That's a radical thought - picking a judge to sit on the country's most powerful judical court. You know that's just crazy enough to work by gum

I'm incredulous that he would pick someone who never was a judge. I do not care how much law experence the person may or may not have. This is a joke!!!

OreoCookie · Oct 3, 2005, 08:19 AM

Personally, I've never heard of her. When I checked the news first, there was no prepared resumé or something available. Seems like a dark horse to me.

Scientist · Oct 3, 2005, 08:21 AM

Haha, Bush is silly.

OldManMac · Oct 3, 2005, 08:22 AM

Just another example of what really counts in the Bush administration; it's not what you know, it's who you know.

Cody Dawg · Oct 3, 2005, 08:36 AM

It's really hard to swallow.

Bush's judgement is getting worse and worse.

ebuddy · Oct 3, 2005, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Maflynn

That's a radical thought - picking a judge to sit on the country's most powerful judical court. You know that's just crazy enough to work by gum

I'm incredulous that he would pick someone who never was a judge. I do not care how much law experence the person may or may not have. This is a joke!!!

I'd pin her against any sitting judge in a heartbeat. So, maybe a judge who has awarded millions to a hapless McDonald's shopper who spilled hot coffee in her lap would be more qualified by virtue of his/her capacity or title? You're incredulous yet do not care how much law experience a person has? Now I'm incredulous.

More than just "law experience" though I must clarify;
- first woman to head her Dallas law firm
- first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association
- first woman elected president of the state bar of Texas.

*As an aside, she was a bipartisan suggestion in and of herself, but also the bipartisan suggestion was made that it would be important to pick someone who was not a judge and could offer a different perspective on the job. One could also not refute the "desire" to replace a woman with a woman.

- Harriet Miers served as Counsel to the President.
- served as Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff
- prior to that she was Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary

At the end of the day, she will be found more than qualified to serve our country in this capacity by virtue of her credentials however, it is not her credentials that will come under scrutiny, but her politics. Naturally, both sides will be concerned with how conservative she is.

OreoCookie · Oct 3, 2005, 08:43 AM

Why? He knows her for a long time. They seem to have similar points of views. I guess he likes her. She just doesn't seem to have any experience at being a judge

BRussell · Oct 3, 2005, 08:45 AM

Bush looked into her heart.

Cody Dawg · Oct 3, 2005, 08:47 AM

I think it shows a remarkable lack of respect for more qualified judges around the country.

It also is in keeping with the mentality of appointing friends and not experienced persons.

Think of Michael Brown and FEMA here. Same thing. And we all know that was a disaster.

OreoCookie · Oct 3, 2005, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I'd pin her against any sitting judge in a heartbeat. So, maybe a judge who has awarded millions to a hapless McDonald's shopper who spilled hot coffee in her lap would be more qualified by virtue of his/her capacity or title? You're incredulous yet do not care how much law experience a person has? Now I'm incredulous.

More than just "law experience" though I must clarify;
- first woman to head her Dallas law firm
- first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association
- first woman elected president of the state bar of Texas.

*As an aside, she was a bipartisan suggestion in and of herself, but also the bipartisan suggestion was made that it would be important to pick someone who was not a judge and could offer a different perspective on the job. One could also not refute the "desire" to replace a woman with a woman.

- Harriet Miers served as Counsel to the President.
- served as Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff
- prior to that she was Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary

At the end of the day, she will be found more than qualified to serve our country in this capacity by virtue of her credentials however, it is not her credentials that will come under scrutiny, but her politics. Naturally, both sides will be concerned with how conservative she is.

But this doesn't change her lack of experience (utter lack of experience) as a judge.

Other than that, I'm sure most of us have read the corresponding cnn article about her, so you didn't really have to summarize it for the rest of us.

Cody Dawg · Oct 3, 2005, 08:49 AM

I'm with OreoCookie on this one, eBuddy. Much as I respect your opinion at these boards, this smacks of cronyism.

RAILhead · Oct 3, 2005, 08:49 AM

Knowing the law and not executing is as a judge is no different than knowing the law and executing it -- other than you've executed it. Point being, just because she has no "paper trail" doesn't mean she doesn't know her stuff.

Crimminy, people.

OldManMac · Oct 3, 2005, 08:50 AM

This has nothing to do with qualifications, and everything to do with patronage. The Bush political patronage machine is alive and well. He's beginning to make Boss Tweed look like a lightweight.

Edit: She may indeed be qualified, but surely there are people who are just as qualified as her, who have actual experience as a judge. The Supreme Court is no place for on-the-job training.

This is cronyism, at best.

Cody Dawg · Oct 3, 2005, 08:50 AM

Yeah. Next time you need brain surgery just get someone who is "book smart," RAILhead, and not experienced.

Then let us know how it went.

BRussell · Oct 3, 2005, 08:53 AM

Not having been a judge is fine. Hell, it might even be a plus.

dcmacdaddy · Oct 3, 2005, 09:03 AM

There is precedent for this appointment. Just look at the last person to be appointed a Supreme Court justice without having served as a judge: recently deceased Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. He did a pretty good job as a jurist.

But Rehnquist *did* have a lot of experience practicing law at the Justice Department and was highly regarded for his legal acumen while at Justice. However, while nominee Miers does have a fair amount of experience practicing law she is not someone who appears to have outstanding scholarly skills in regard to the law.

Everyone is praising her "firsts" in the corporate legal world and in the Texas bar but simply being the first does in no way correspond to having an acute and perceptive legal mind. And I think those traits (an acute and perceptive legal mind) are what should get someone nominated to the Supreme Court.
(Whether or not you like him John Roberts is brilliant--and universally acknowledged as such--when in comes to his knowledge of the law.)

RIRedinPA · Oct 3, 2005, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

just because she has no "paper trail" .

That might be the key to it all right there.

RAILhead · Oct 3, 2005, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Yeah. Next time you need brain surgery just get someone who is "book smart," RAILhead, and not experienced.

Then let us know how it went.

Come noe Cody, you couldn't have come up with more inane comparison.

smacintush · Oct 3, 2005, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

There is precedent for this appointment.

Uh, yeah! About a THIRD of all of the Supreme Court Justices had never been judges. A third. 35 to be exact.

You guys should really go buy a clue before jerking those knees of yours.

zerostar · Oct 3, 2005, 09:21 AM

Some people on freerepug are upset that she has personaly donated to Llody Bentsen, Al Gore and the DNC, why should that matter if her decisions are supposed to be non-partisan?

Looking at freeper there seems to be a lot of pissed republicans...

"cronyism. This defines the Bushes. It is disgusting. We should oppose this nomination. We didn't elect Bush to promote his personal cronies, but to appoint proven, strict constructionists, to counter and reverse the 40-year perversion of the Constitution. Clinton nominated the most left-wing candidate in American history with Ginsberg. Why is Bush so scared to put a Rogers-Brown up there and win the battle of ideas--Americans overwhelmingly support our side."

"What makes me so fire spitting angry about this ridiculous choice is that W's COURAGE is what I loved about him the most. Choosing Meirs is an act of COWARDICE."

"60 years old! This is such a lackluster pick. How disappointing. One of the few ways to build a legacy, and wasted at best."

"Miers will sail through, just like the last "conservative" (cough, cough) Chief Justice we just got scammed on. Bush is an idiot. He's an idiot on the borders, idiot on taxes, idiot EXTRAORDINAIRE on SCOTUS. The DUers are right about this guy when they question his intelligence, I'm afraid."

smacintush · Oct 3, 2005, 09:23 AM

I might also remind you that Judges were lawyers first, and all that is required is knowledge of the law and the role of the SCOTUS, and that judges are appointed and then they have to be RE-ELECTED. An experienced judge is experienced in being a politician. There's a case to be made for not having and career politician judge in the seat.

Yeah, I realize she has had some experience as an elected official but it is my understanding that it is very limited.

cmeisenzahl · Oct 3, 2005, 09:24 AM

I think the two most important criteria are:

1. Is she able to read the Constitution?

2. Has she ever read it?

Chris

ebuddy · Oct 3, 2005, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I'm with OreoCookie on this one, eBuddy. Much as I respect your opinion at these boards, this smacks of cronyism.

It's not cronyism and I'll tell you why. She will not be scrutinized for her credentials or lack thereof, she'll be scrutinized for her politics. Period. As a scholar of law and in her many years' service in court, she'll be found more than intellectually qualified and experienced for the position. I'd say less than 10% of the hearings she endures will focus on her having not served as a judge. To assume one is qualified by virtue of their having served as a judge alone in light of the numerous moronic rulings we've witnessed coming from the bench just in the past 10 years is disingenuous. IMH and accurate O.

smacintush · Oct 3, 2005, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by KarlG

This is cronyism, at best.

Cronyism is a current Dem talking point buzzword. Just how do you think politicians work? There is plenty of cronyism in all areas of both parties. It's part of the package, I'm not saying it's RIGHT, but Bush is not doing anything any different that any of his predecessors or colleagues in the federal government.

Besides, objectively speaking if there are multiple candidates that stand out and you only know the one, isn't it better to pick the one you KNOW? Isn't that a way to be SURE what you are getting? Just because he knows her doesn't mean she is unqualified ya' know. All things being equal, IF she is indeed qualified I would PREFER she be a friend for the above reason.

Cody Dawg · Oct 3, 2005, 09:31 AM

here is precedent for this appointment. Just look at the last person to be appointed a Supreme Court justice without having served as a judge: recently deceased Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. He did a pretty good job as a jurist.

Thanks for that information, actually.

And for the information that a lot of them were never judges.

1. It explains why states now can take the properties of citizens away from them
2. It explains why Terry Schiavo was ignored by the Supreme Court

THEY HAVE NO EXPERIENCE.

ebuddy · Oct 3, 2005, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

But this doesn't change her lack of experience (utter lack of experience) as a judge.

Other than that, I'm sure most of us have read the corresponding cnn article about her, so you didn't really have to summarize it for the rest of us.

True, though ironically from the posts I read the only snippet they caught from that article was that she had not served as a judge. I thought it needed clarification. I know you disagree, but...

Knowing the kinds of rulings made on cases in the past several years, I'm not sure "JUDGE" necessarily makes you qualified to replace urinal cakes.

She will not be scrutinized for her lack of service on the bench. She'll be scrutinized for her politics. Plain and simple.

smacintush · Oct 3, 2005, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Thanks for that information, actually.

And for the information that a lot of them were never judges.

1. It explains why states now can take the properties of citizens away from them
2. It explains why Terry Schiavo was ignored by the Supreme Court

THEY HAVE NO EXPERIENCE.

Sheesh, how would experience have prevented ANY of those things. You need to go buy a clue as well.

ALL A JUDGE IS, IS A GLORIFIED LAWYER! HELLO?

smacintush · Oct 3, 2005, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

She will not be scrutinized for her lack of service on the bench. She'll be scrutinized for her politics. Plain and simple.

Yep, as was already promised ahead of time by the opposing party.

Millennium · Oct 3, 2005, 09:37 AM

I'm more than a little incredulous myself; it does seem odd to nominate a Justice with no experience as an actual judge. At the same time, this is not entirely unprecedented. In the US and many other common-law systems, most judges start their careers as lawyers, and there is no separate training for the two paths.

To nominate a Supreme Court justice with no experience as a judge is unusual, but it is not unprecedented. I'll see if I can dig up some previous cases.

RAILhead · Oct 3, 2005, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

ALL A JUDGE IS, IS A GLORIFIED LAWYER! HELLO?

Deaf ear, my friend -- people can't seem to grasp that there's nothing "special" about a judge.

Maury

Cody Dawg · Oct 3, 2005, 09:55 AM

Millenium

I'm more than a little incredulous myself; it does seem odd to nominate a Justice with no experience as an actual judge.

Okay, so it appears that Millenium, OreoCookie, and myself all seem to - more or less - agree about this.

I'm sure there are others.

Dork. · 10:08 AM

It's clear why Bush is doing this. It's been the custom in recent confirmation hearings for candidates to not answer specific questions about cases that may come before them. But past cases are fair game. A judge with a long record of rulings would have his record cherry-picked by the other side for the one or two that look the most incredulous (or have the most ability to be taken out of context) and be grilled on those.

Appointing lawyers with little judicial experience means they have no public record to examine, as well as the shield of not answering questions about future cases. So the hearings will basically involve a lot of dancing, with nothing definitive being learned about the nominee. For that matter, the nominee can say anything she wants without having a prior record to contradict, and not be held to those positions once on the bench.

I won't disqualify a lawyer with no judicial experience out of hand -- you don't need to have been a judge to know the law -- but Roberts struck me as someone who was close to the Supreme Court throughout his career as a lawyer, and thus more acceptable than someone who ran the Texas Lottery commission. (edit: I read her experience too quickly, she was onle head of the lottery commission for five years...)

smacintush · Oct 3, 2005, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Dork.

It's clear why Bush is doing this. It's been the custom in recent confirmation hearings for candidates to not answer specific questions about cases that may come before them. But past cases are fair game. A judge with a long record of rulings would have his record cherry-picked by the other side for the one or two that look the most incredulous (or have the most ability to be taken out of context) and be grilled on those.

Appointing lawyers with little judicial experience means they have no public record to examine, as well as the shield of not answering questions about future cases. So the hearings will basically involve a lot of dancing, with nothing definitive being learned about the nominee. For that matter, the nominee can say anything she wants without having a prior record to contradict, and not be held to those positions once on the bench.

I'd say that is an excellent analysis. The dems have promised a fight… "nominee unseen"… so this is a way of sticking it to them I'm sure.

BRussell · Oct 3, 2005, 10:12 AM

What the right wing blogs are saying about her:

In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met.

Haha. Now we know why she was nominated.

This nomination is more of a problem for conservatives than liberals. She has no record as a conservative, so they're being asked to trust Bush's judgment on this one. Not a happy place to be. There were plenty of other conservatives that every single Republican would have supported. But, in his Forrest Gump style, Bush goes with his instincts. Ouch. Conservatives who thought this was your chance to remake the SC: I feel for you.

rhombus · Oct 3, 2005, 10:14 AM

Not only has she never been a judge, but she has never argued a case before the Supreme Court. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers)

smacintush · Oct 3, 2005, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by BRussell

What the right wing blogs are saying about her: Haha. Now we know why she was nominated.

This nomination is more of a problem for conservatives than liberals. She has no record as a conservative, so they're being asked to trust Bush's judgment on this one. Not a happy place to be. There were plenty of other conservatives that every single Republican would have supported. But, in his Forrest Gump style, Bush goes with his instincts. Ouch. Conservatives who thought this was your chance to remake the SC: I feel for you.

Doesn't matter, they will filibuster anyway. They have been careful to set the precedent for that ahead of time.

saddino · Oct 3, 2005, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Doesn't matter, they will filibuster anyway. They have been careful to set the precedent for that ahead of time.

Really? I'm not too sure about that since Harry Reid apparently is very supportive of Miers.

IMHO, the conservatives here who are defending this pick jumped the gun. Sometimes there is a fine line between a Bush decision and a "conservative" position. As the right begins to sour on this pick, I wouldn't be surprised if some of you change your tune.

We'll see. Some are predicting (hoping?) the left may in fact "take her down" and the right will let it happen to give Bush another chance.

smacintush · Oct 3, 2005, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by saddino

Really? I'm not too sure about that since Harry Reid apparently is very supportive of Miers.

IMHO, the conservatives here who are defending this pick jumped the gun. Sometimes there is a fine line between a Bush decision and a "conservative" position. As the right begins to sour on this pick, I wouldn't be surprised if some of you change your tune.

We'll see. Some are predicting (hoping?) the left may in fact "take her down" and the right will let it happen to give Bush another chance.

Well, I personally don't have an opinion on her either way.

Cody Dawg · Oct 3, 2005, 11:12 AM

Not only has she never been a judge, but she has never argued a case before the Supreme Court. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers)

Unbelievable.

And she's supposed to be taken seriously by other justices and judges who have put in the time, gained experience and breadth of knowledge, and paid their dues?

Really unbelievable.

Bush

on this one.

olePigeon · Oct 3, 2005, 12:06 PM

What do you mean, she has the highest credentials:

1) White
2) Texan

What more do you need?!

OreoCookie · Oct 3, 2005, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Knowing the law and not executing is as a judge is no different than knowing the law and executing it -- other than you've executed it. Point being, just because she has no "paper trail" doesn't mean she doesn't know her stuff.

Crimminy, people.

No, it's not the same. It's actually very different, as a lawyer you argue the cases and brush over or completely ignore your tactical weaknesses. As a judge, you have to be impartial.

ThinkInsane · Oct 3, 2005, 12:22 PM

Earl Warren was never a sitting judge before he was on the SC, and he seemed to do a decent job of it...

RAILhead · Oct 3, 2005, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

No, it's not the same. It's actually very different, as a lawyer you argue the cases and brush over or completely ignore your tactical weaknesses. As a judge, you have to be impartial.

Only in the execution, not in the knowledge with which you execute.

Try again.

smacintush · Oct 3, 2005, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

Earl Warren was never a sitting judge before he was on the SC, and he seemed to do a decent job of it...

That fact that she was never a judge is really non-issue, there are other reasons to not like this nomination. Focusing on this is really…well ignorant.

olePigeon · Oct 3, 2005, 12:30 PM

I was hoping for a Chinese guy.

OldManMac · Oct 3, 2005, 12:32 PM

Here's what some of your conservative friends are saying about her. It isn't just us commie leftists, that don't think she's best for the job, apparently.

OreoCookie · Oct 3, 2005, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Well, I personally don't have an opinion on her either way.

But that doesn't stop you from zealously defending her …

Maflynn · Oct 3, 2005, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I'd pin her against any sitting judge in a heartbeat. So, maybe a judge who has awarded millions to a hapless McDonald's shopper who spilled hot coffee in her lap would be more qualified by virtue of his/her capacity or title? You're incredulous yet do not care how much law experience a person has? Now I'm incredulous.

I read the sound bite about her.

As for the McDonalds customer, I thinkk you got it wrong, the jury gave her millions and a judge reduced it.

Back to the subject matter.
While precedent certainly has been set in the past, (that doesn't make it right) that you don't need to be a judge to become a supreme court judge, I think its wrong. Book knowledge vs. experience. Life is always much different then what you've learned. It doesn't matter if your a doctor, caprenter, or judge. Appying what you've learned and having done so of many years is the difference I'm highlighting.

For me this isn't a liberal vs. conservative, democrat vs. republican issue, heck I'm a republican myself. I want a person who has spent years working on court cases to be sitting on the high court.

Mike

smacintush · Oct 3, 2005, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

But that doesn't stop you from zealously defending her …

For an educated person you sure do have a reading comprehension problem sometimes. I never defended her at all.

I take issue with the ignorant reasons that people here are opposing her.

The person I am defending here is Bush, if you would actually READ the thread most of the negative posts are not against HER, but rather against Bush's ability (or lack thereof) to nominate a qualified person for the seat.