« Note: Entries below refer to the nomination of and hearings on John G. Roberts, the newly be-robed chief justice. | Main | CourtBriefs for Oct. 10, 2005: Da Lynch Mob »
October 06, 2005
LiveCurrent Readers Respond
A sampling of reaction on LiveCurrent to the Miers nomination:
The Miers nomination is Bush at his most devious. "Take my underqualified crony or you'll wish you had. I've got a deck full of Scalias and Thomases up my sleeve." — David Howard. Bingo. At last someone hits the ball squarely. — Jimbo
For a man who got everything in life by connection and not by competency, why is everyone so shocked that Bush picked someone connected to him? Competency is never a criteria for "Republicrony" party. — dinantay
I, for one, am happy that she does not have judicial experience. Judges become insulated from the reality of the practice of law. I also find her background interesting. Although she is pro-life (or anti-choice, whichever you prefer), she worked pro-bono, encouraged law firms to represent indigent people, hired women at her law firm and overall, appears to be a decent person. — RN
What's her problem with mascara? — detmolders
Partisan politics aside, if Miers is the "best" that GWB could find, he didn't look very hard.... What's most problematic is that Miers has NEVER served as a judge. It reminds me of one of those commercials in which a celebrity says, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV." — TrueBlueDem
Wait, wait...the man on the $10 in my pocket has a comment about Ms. Miers: "He [the President] would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure." — CS Francklyn
In a telecast this week, Ms. Miers commented that the Patriot Act should be extended. Is it the role of a candidate to the post of Chief Justice to make such a comment prior to a full hearing before the Senate or, if it had come to pass,before there has been a full review by the Supreme Court? — Frances
The question in the Senate will be whether a fundamentalist Evangelical is likely to be free to function as a strict constructionist in the positive sense of the term. For there is a positive side of that doctrine which is designed to protect the American Constitution from gradual erosion by the courts, Congress and the bureaucracy. It involves a sense of judicial mission, disinterested objectivity and intellectual courage. — Hunter Watson
The best person he could find?! — Sweaty Moon
At the press conference today, Bush claimed that he intimately knew her character. Yet, when pressed, he feebly claimed to be unable to recall any conversation with her about Roe v. Wade or abortion. That then begs the question, how can Bush know her "character" if he doesn't know her opinions on the hottest button issue of our day? In reality, Bush is either lying or a fool. Or both. — John M
Getting a non-judge, a Texan, and a graduate of a Southwestern, as opposed to an East or West Coast school is probably the absolute best we could hope for in a Supreme Court justice. By background and environment Miers will be more aware of the constitution and the fact that the constitution is changed by amendment--not by foreign practices or personal feelings. — JR Doty
Liberals are just showing their ignorance complaining about a lack of judicial experience with Harriet Miers. 35 of the 114 members of the Supreme Court since its inception had no judicial experience (almost 1/3) when appointed. In addition, several Democratic senators suggested her name to the president and some were openly calling for a nominee with no judicial experience. — Timothy
All sides have judged her and yet this woman has not ascended to the Supreme Court nor heard her first case. It is my hope that she interprets the laws of this country fairly and free from prejudiced views. — Patricia
I understand it's not without historical precedent, but is it really too much to expect in this day of information and specialization, that someone nominated for a lifetime post on the highest court in the land have at least some rudimentary judicial experience? Hey, I hear Michael Brown has some time on his hands. — Al Hamman
As a conservtive I can understand the concern many on the right have about this nomination, I have the same concerns but the fact that this president knows this nominee like the back of his hand tells me a lot. It would be well to take note the previous mistakes made by former republcan presidents,Souter,(Bush 41) Kennedy (Reagan) O'Conner (Reagan) Stevens (Ford) had no such personal or working relationship with their appointees.... When it comes to the SC and the circuit courts he's a stone cold,rock hard conservative. — Ed Luciano
Harriet Miers' nomination is another brilliant move by our president. He passed on the pressures from Congress, the media, and other judiciary, to nominate a person of character, legal understanding, and clear-minded judgement. The "conventional wisdom" of the mainstream has again been replaced with a pragmatic and non-political nomination. — Sam Crawford
It seems to me that nominating a person to the Supreme COurt with no judicial experience is like nominating someone who organizes horse shows to head FEMA. Wait, that happenned. — Keith
Oh my. Sounds like another reality show brewing. George Bush’s "The apprentice Supreme Court Associate." Where 16 totally unqualified contestants live in the White House for 8 weeks, and compete for a chance to be Supreme Court Justice. Disclaimer, some contestants have, or may stay in the Lincoln bedroom. — A. Boullon
The Miers nomination is Bush at his most devious: "Take my underqualified crony or you'll wish you had. I've got a deck full of Scalias and Thomases up my sleeve." — David Howard
What a joke: another political hack appointment. She will be for the Supreme Court what Mike Brown was for FEMA. — MD
Posted at October 6, 2005 05:55 PM
Comments
Harriet Miers is being sent to be George W. Bush incarnate on the Supreme Court. I for one, would like to see Dubya LEAVE a legacy to this country instead of continuing to reign over any branch of government when his tenure is at its end.
Miers is simply supremely unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.
A Supreme Court justice doesn't necessarily need to be a judge, but should be one of the country's top constitutional minds - having contemplated and dealt with heavy constitutional issues over the course of a long and decorated life in the law. Often, these come from the ranks of circuit court judges, lawyers who routinely practice before the Supreme Court, and academia.
Supreme Court justices also should not come from any history of political service. Once a person has tasted the power to actually make law - instead of interpreting law as judicial service requires - I believe that it is nearly impossible for that individual to completely change course and be relegated to simply stating and restating what the law is without injecting personal policy preferences as to what the law SHOULD be in that person's viewpoint. This is what leads to activism - both politically liberal and politically conservative - which is dangerous. Once a justice untethers himself from the firm footing of the Constitution, the Constitution no longer dictates to us our rights and privileges. Instead, our rights become dictated to us by a judicial oligarchy - something entirely different than what the framers of the Constitution contemplated when they set up this country's government.
I do not back down against the complaint that the attacks against Miers are "elitist" in nature. How much more elite can you get than to be one of 9 lawyers who tells the country what the law is? They should be the country's leading intellectual lights on the Constitution. Harriet Miers by no stretch of the imagination - and as evidenced by her stumble out of the gates thus far - cannot even arguably be said to be one of these people.
Miers needs to either be withdrawn or defeated on a bi-partisan basis for her lacking credentials. Thereafter, Bush needs to nominate a SERIOUS SCOTUS nominee like Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones, Miguel Estrada, J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Samuel Alito, or Viet Dinh.
Posted by: EzOnTheEyez at October 18, 2005 02:27 PM
The conservatives will love her after they all get over the collective shock of confirming her on the basis of her strength of character. (Should she have been a speech writer for Rush instead?) The Democrats won't like her, but then again, what did you expect? She's a conservative, and she has character.
Posted by: bork-me-not at October 10, 2005 03:00 PM
For a man who got everything in life by connection and not by competency, why is everyone so shocked that Bush picked someone connected to him? Competency is never a criteria for "Republicrony" party.
Posted by: dinantay at October 6, 2005 04:54 PM
The Miers nomination is Bush at his most devious: "Take my underqualified crony or you'll wish you had. I've got a deck full of Scalias and Thomases up my sleeve." — David Howard
Bingo. At last someone hits the ball squarely.
Posted by: Jimbo at October 6, 2005 02:19 PM
I, for one, am happy that she does not have judicial experience. Judges become insulated from the reality of the practice of law. I also find her background interesting. Although she is pro-life (or anti-choice, whichever you prefer), she worked pro-bono, encouraged law firms to represent indigent people, hired women at her law firm and overall, appears to be a decent person. I do think some of the criticism of her is elitist. An excellent attorney does not have to be Ivy-League educated. My one concern is her close association with Nathan Hecht, a very conservative judge. Overall though, the more criticism I hear of her from both the right and the left, the more I approve of her.
Posted by: RN at October 6, 2005 12:35 PM
In a telecast this week, Ms. Meir commented that the Patriot Act should be extended. Is it the role of a candidate to the post of Chief Justice to make such a comment prior to a full hearing before the Senate or, if it had come to pass,before there has been a full review by the Supreme Court?
Posted by: Frances at October 5, 2005 03:12 PM
The best person he could find?!
Posted by: Sweaty Moon at October 5, 2005 07:47 AM
Liberals are just showing their ignorance complaining about a lack of judicial experience with Harriet Miers. 35 of the 114 members of the Supreme Court since its inception had no judicial experience (almost 1/3) when appointed. In addition, several Democratic senators suggested her name to the president and some were openly calling for a nominee with no judicial experience.
Posted by: Timothy at October 4, 2005 11:47 AM