Replies

I am NEVER going to side with elitists because they understand what it means to be "qualified."

Superb post, pollyannaish. Mr. Levin (skeptic that I am, I must qualify by saying if that's really you), I agree with post #564. Above all, what I'm seeing in the response of many conservative columnists and talking heads to this nomination is a profound snobbery.

So the woman does not come from an elite Ivy League law school, and she doesn't have judicial experience on a federal appeals court. Comparatively speaking, she's a humble lawyer from Texas. Horrors!

I spent some time today reviewing short biographies of the 109 individuals who have made it onto the court since 1789. They were all lawyers, that's true. But a sizeable minority were never judges prior to going on the Supreme Court. Many had professional backgrounds roughly comparable to that of Harriet Miers. Some were elected officials, others were ambassadors or cabinet secretaries, and some -- like William Rehnquist -- were relative unknowns in private practice before their nominations. Several were either assistant U.S. attorneys general or U.S. Attorney General, a post currently filled by a former WH Counsel.

To me, it seems the main arguments against her from the conservative media elite seems to be that she isn't who they wanted for the court. She's not their pick, so she must be an awful pick. She doesn't have conservative bona fides documented in a paper trail, so some people won't get the battle royal they wanted.

Well, for months, I've been hearing a string of names from people in the elite conservative media. Yet I don't know those people. What I know about them, I learn from people like you. When all of you use your media megaphones to tell me your opinions about who should be nominated for the court, you're asking me to blindly trust you.

If I choose, instead, to trust the judgement of the President I voted for, you think me a fool. We shall see.

So the woman does not come from an elite Ivy League law school, and she doesn't have judicial experience on a federal appeals court. Comparatively speaking, she's a humble lawyer from Texas. Horrors!

No one is complaining that she did not go to an Ivy League school. In fact most of the other names talked about did not go to Ivy League schools for law school. They went to public universities like the University of Virgina, University of Texas, University of California Los Angeles, University of Baylor (not a public, but not an Ivy), University of Michigan and so on. On the USNews rankings they are ranked above and below SMU.

The lack of judicial experience in and of itself is not a problem either and the fact that she is a humble lawyer of Texas would usually not be a problem. As I am sure many have pointed out CJ Rehnquist was not a Judge before hand and Thomas had limited judicial experience, the same with Roberts btw. But there is a difference between Rehnquist, Thomas Roberts and Miers. Rehnquist was a constitutional scholar and held high positions within the Department of Justice and other governmental positions. Thomas was on an appeals court and before that was a well regarded government lawyer (though hated by the ABA), and we all know about Roberts. Miers on the other hand is a corporate lawyer and has done ConLaw for only a limited time and not much at that whose main experience is on the Texas Lottery Commission. When appointing someone to the Supreme Court you want someone with practical legal skills and a working knowledge of Constitutional law and issues Miers does not have that ConLaw knowledge.

This nomination should have been used as a referendum on the democrats vision of the court. This was an opportunity for Bush and conservatives to argue that our vision of the Supreme Court is the right version and to convince Americans that the democrats are wrong. You beat the democrats at the ballot box and the arena of ideas. This nomination does not allow you to do that.

To me, it seems the main arguments against her from the conservative media elite seems to be that she isn't who they wanted for the court. She's not their pick, so she must be an awful pick. She doesn't have conservative bona fides documented in a paper trail, so some people won't get the battle royal they wanted.

The point which many opponents of Miers have tried to get across but people don't understand is that she may be a fine pick, but we don't know what she is but what we do know is that a lifetime appointment is to precious to waste on a stealth nominee. Republicans have been screwed before by stealth nominees in Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy and so on. With as many important cases coming before the court this and upcoming terms why tempt fate when you can appoint a brilliant legal conservative on the court who is a reliable vote for your position.

Why should we wait ten years to see if Miers was a good pick when you know so much about so many other judges like Luttig, McConnell, Jones (either of them), Rogers Brown, Batchelder, Garza, Owens, Pryor, Clement and many others? Nevermind the fact that she is 60 and will only be on the court 15 years or so when you could appoint a Luttig, McConnell or many others and get 25-30 years out of the nomination.

Finally, at lot has been said her and other places that Miers will be a vote to support Bush. That is just wrong. A Supreme Court justice should not support a person but constitutional ideas. Bush has pushed many things which conservatives should be against. You have Campaign Finance and Affirmative Action to top the list. Bush supported CFR and did not stand up against AA. By the logic that Miers is a solid vote for Bush, you are conceding that she will support CFR and AA, which isn't a conservative position or a strict constitutionalist position. Flame away.