Posted on 10/05/2005 5:10:11 AM PDT by OESY
Although the ink is still drying on her nomination, the president's selection Monday of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has already been met with praise from senators on both sides of the aisle. As one would expect, her nomination has also been met with questions by those who do not yet know her. But those of us who do know and have worked with Ms. Miers think very highly of her, and we believe she will make a valuable contribution to the Supreme Court.
Nonetheless, some have criticized the president because he did not select an Ivy-League-credentialed federal appeals court judge for the open seat. I think this criticism is misplaced. For one thing, there is no evidence that service on the federal court of appeals is a prerequisite for distinguished service on the Supreme Court: 41 of the 109 justices who have served on the Supreme Court had no judicial experience at all when they were nominated. These include several luminaries from the school of judicial restraint, including the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Furthermore, Harriet Miers's background as a legal practitioner is an asset, not a detriment. She has spent her career representing real people in courtrooms across America. This is precisely the type of experience that the Supreme Court needs. The court is full of justices who served as academics and court of appeals judges before they were nominated to the bench. What the court is missing is someone who understands the consequences of its decisions on the American people....
The court is dangerously out of touch with America. Ms. Miers will help bring it back down to earth.
Ultimately, I think some people are uneasy about Harriet Miers because they are unfamiliar with her....
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
If W likes her, I like her.
I think the first, negative, knee-jerk reaction to the nomination on the part of Freepers was due to the fact that we were spoiling for a fight. I know I was.
I was ready for a Luttig-type nominee, an in-your-face Conservative that would provoke a monumental Senate battle, a filibuster and ultimately, the nuclear option.
Cooler heads have prevailed. The opportunity exists for us to get a lower-profile-Luttig type, without the same credentials, to be sure, but philosophically equivalent.
And all this, hopefully, without a fight.
Some thought should also be given to preserving the filibuster on judicial nominees. The Democrats have already painted themselves into a corner with their obstructionism; they've filibustered so many nominees that the country would back the nuclear option.
However, if we can "stealth" a nominee through, (an evangelical Christian, no less), without provoking the filibuster that Luttig might have prompted, we preserve the right for Republicans to filibuster at some point in the future(and may that day never come)when WE need to do it.
Perhaps I'm ascribing too much cleverness to the President and his staff with this scenario, but assuming Miers is what the Pres says she is, the shoe fits.
Sen Cornyn is a good conservative. I think the GOP should consider him as a candidate in '08.
Regarding Reid and Leahy, I have to wonder if they knew Ms Miers was pro life and a fundamentalist Christian when they suggested her as a candidate for the court.
I suspect that the Dims did not do their homework on this one. Look for them to crawfish as time goes on.
Very well said...couldn't have said it better myself. Agree with your assessment totally.
I didn't get your ping in time to listen to Rush on Bennett. Can you (or anybody) please recap the highlights? thanks.
You left out that decision about Eminent Domain that 5 of these towering intellects on the Supreme Court who are so "well versed in Constitutional law" ruled on.
It was about the same as what he said on Greta last night.
http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/10/04/rushongreta/
Carradine;
Do you think that a high-profile nominee would have turned around a number of Republican Senators, a la DeWine, Voinovich, et.al. besides the usual Liberal/Republican suspects? That's one of the fears I had - what an embarrassment that would have been.
Is it possible the White House didn't want to risk such an embarrassment?
This really is a twisted psycho-game, isn't it? My guess is that before this is over, we'll be defending Miers, and it just may be possible that we'll be looking at a filibuster, anyway. She may turn out not to be as "stealth" as I thought.
Do you think the Republicans use the nuclear option on a nominee like Miers, if it comes to that?
Or do they move on and ask the President for another nominee?
I just heard Lott on FOX..he says he's NOT happy with her nomination..... and this is how he wants to gets back into the senate leadership?
This is a good point. We could use a truck driver or a nurse on the US Supreme Court. Diversity is not just gender or ethnicity or color; it also includes people's backgrounds and occupations.
IIRC, the US Constitution does not require judicial background for Justices.
Yes, we the people, can go to hell, they know so much better what is right for us.
He's been a pariah to most on the right, but now he'll be their hero.
He had more courage than any other President in history.
Doubtful any President in the future would have dropped the bomb to end the war and save American lives.
He was kidding.
Some people don't go to ivy league or top 10 law schools because they simply can't afford it.
The truth is that the education you get at a top law school is that much better than what you get at a lesser school. Law schools really are considered more evaluative than educational by Firms. If you see someone got into Yale, that confirms to you they have brainpower and ability. Sort of the stamp of approval. The value is the name and screening process to get into the school -- not the education you get once inside.
If someone chooses to apply to a "lesser" school, that does not mean that they lack the qualifications to go to a top school. Miers went to a Texas school. Perhaps she wanted to be close to her family, or a boyfriend, or it was simply cheaper. That's the way it works sometimes in the real world.
But I'll address your comment. Many law students discover that they would be much better off NOT going to a big name school. All that counts in the hiring of graduates is class ranking and law review. IOW--ninety percent of the student body exists to support the upper ten percent. Law firms ignore the rest of the grads. This is true even in "lesser" law schools. Therefore, you've got a better shot at a better job if you choose a law school not so highly ranked where you have a better shot at being in the top ten.
It'd be amusing to see the lower ninety just drop out of school once they know they're not going to be in the top ten. That'd show the law school faculty...
I'd like to see our law schools cut down to ten percent capacity, anyway. Who needs all these lawyers? It's a pestilence!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.