WSJ: Harriet Miers - Finally, a Supreme Court nominee who understands real people.

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....

k; NOBODY ever filibustered judicial nominees back in those days of relative innocence. This is a tactic new to the Senate, courtesy of your basic, soon-to-be-rump, Democrat Party.

It would be nice to nuke them (soooo nice) but sometimes, as had been said many times, revenge is a dish that is best served cold.

Someday, hopefully not in my lifetime, there may be an occasion where a Republican minority has to drag this monster the Dems have created out of the closet and sic it on it's creator.

Maybe this will help? Just keep repeating to yourself "I trust George W., I trust George W." After a few hours, your mind gets so numb, Harriet Miers looks so much better than Samuel Alito, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owens. After all, he knows and trust her, that should be enough. And she looks like she exercises, too. The one bright side to the last observation is that it means Ted Kennedy is probably disqualified from being appointed if Justice Stevens retires. He does fit the main qualifiers however: he isn't on record expressing conservative judicial opinions and he's watched a movie with the President.

As for Cornyn's article, it sounds very similar to the statement of Senator Roman Hruska in defense of Nixon nominee G. Harold Carswell who had a similar glaring lack of qualification for the Court: "Even if he is mediocre there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there."

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.