What are the "qualifications" for the SC for originalists? Is it something beyond what the Constitution states?
If so, how come? I thought we are not supposed to extrapolate from the original meaning of the Constitution.
If John Marshall's non juridical background was sufficient for qualification, then that's good enough for Harriett Miers.
Either an extensive academic career or an influential stint on the federal bench - preferably the appeals court - or both. I don't think that's so much to ask. Something that demonstrates that the candidate has spent a lot of time thinking, in a rigorous environment, about the nature of constitutional law and developing a coherent philosophy about how to understand and interpret and apply it. Otherwise, we have we spent the last twenty years grooming such jurists?
Miers ran the Lottery Commission and a law firm. Very nice. But the administrative skills those jobs require a re vastly different from the jurisprudential skills needed on the bench.
If so, how come? I thought we are not supposed to extrapolate from the original meaning of the Constitution.>/i>
I confess I have no idea what you're talking about here.
If John Marshall's non juridical background was sufficient for qualification, then that's good enough for Harriett Miers.
Come on, Sink. You can do better than this.
In 1800 there wasn't much opportunity for anyone to have had experience on the federal judiciary or have spent much time thinking about it. There also was not much federal law to interpret.
Nonetheless, Marshall was already clearly - by his contemporaries' measure - one of the most brilliant political intellectuals of his generation.
Miers doesn't have Marshall's excuse. And there's no evidence she's especially brilliant.
There *is* plenty of evidence that she's been a good friend and lawyer for George Bush. Bush is in essence asking us to buy a pig in a poke.
Maybe she'll prove me wrong in the coming weeks. But none of that will change the reality of how she got the job.