Replies

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.

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.

There's so much in your post, and it's very late. So let me just respond to the above point. YOU may want someone with practical legal skills and a working knowledge of Constitutional law. Many presidents since 1789 have wanted other things in their nominees. Quite a number of Supreme Court justices had no prior judicial experience at all. Many, if not most, were not Constitutional scholars. As for a "working knowledge," what does that mean? Anyone who successfully goes through law school and passes a bar exam would have "working knowledge" not only of the U.S. Constitution, but of their state as well.

Do you know that of the 17 U.S. chief justices (including Roberts), only six had prior judicial experience on any court, let alone a federal appeals court? One of them, Roger Brooke Taney, was Secretary of the Treasury at the time he was appointed to chief justice. He served briefly as U.S. Attorney General before becoming Treasury secretary.

Another, Melville Weston Fuller, served one term in the Illinois House of Representatives before being offered the posts of Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and Solicitor General of the U.S. (a post recently held by Ted Olson). Fuller turned down both appointments. Finally he was nominated to be Chief Justice and was confirmed.

The history of the court is filled with justices who do not meet the standards being thrown around today by conservatives upset with the appointment of Harriet Miers.

Miers may be a stealth nominee for those Bork jockies who want to find that one flaw that will torpedoe President Bush's choice. I am sure our opponents in this great culture war have gone over the obvious nominees with a fine tooth comb. With Miers choice, President Bush has thrown a wrench into the strategy of the DemonRATs (I will only call Zell Miller a Democrat). By the time they have started to find something, the hearings will have been over.

This niminee was one of strategy. The Republicans have 51 Senators. Many of them cannot be trusted to hold firm to a down to the line fight which would have occured with any of the known contenders. President Bush was not going to put a nominee in that kind of jeapardy--not when the DemonRATs had vowed to put this next nominee through the grinder as payback for the defeat they suffered with the Roberts victory. With this tactic working, the President decided that it is one he can win with. Now those Republicans in the Senate will not have to face any serious embarassment from the DemonRATs who are known to Bork nominees on such things as pubic hair on Coke cans. Now the DemonRATs risk criticism