Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Big Steve
This nomination is a disaster in the context of a nominee to the Supreme Court where there are only nine positions and the fact that an opening become available very very rarely. There were so many better qualified candidates... at least hundreds.

I'm sure Ms. Miers is a fine woman, hard working and decent lawyer. If her nomination was to a lower court that would be fine. Her nomination to the Supreme Court is like a little league baseball player being elected to the MLB Hall of Fame without any high school, college, minor or major league baseball experience.

2 posted on 10/05/2005 10:19:46 AM PDT by ajolympian2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ajolympian2004

Here's the deal -- if I'm in a spot where I have to choose someone for something so important that it must be right, 100%, then I am not going to pour through resumes looking for the most qualified candidate. For example, if I'm in a spot where I need someone who knows about electrical engineering, I'm not going to go through the resumes of all the MIT grads if it's critically important. The person I'm going to call is one of my friends from college. Why? Because I know that when things are deadly serious she isn't going to tell me sweet stories of kitties purring and angels singing. She's going to give it to me straight. I can trust her to do the right thing. I suspect Bush is in the same spot. He can trust Miers to be a strict constructionist. Looking for a strict constructionist solely by going through judicial records and people's qualifications is how we ended up with Souter.


8 posted on 10/05/2005 10:25:17 AM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ajolympian2004
I happen to think...the thing you mention as being an impediment...could be viewed as a positive.

Sort of along the same vein...I'd like to see less career politicians/lawyers in politics.

FWIW-

17 posted on 10/05/2005 10:33:42 AM PDT by Osage Orange (I'm caring less, more and more....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ajolympian2004
Her nomination to the Supreme Court is like a little league baseball player being elected to the MLB Hall of Fame without any high school, college, minor or major league baseball experience.

I think your analogy is incorrect. SCOTUS is the major leagues, not the hall. To be inducted, one must have retired from playing.

The little leagues would be outside the legal profession entirely. The civilian and government lawyer roles would be A or AA minor league. Circuit courts are the AAA farm club.

If an A farm team player has the capability of playing at the major leagues, and catches the eye of the scouts, then why can't they play in the majors? Just because they didn't work their way up through the system doesn't mean they don't have the ability to play at the top level.

24 posted on 10/05/2005 10:42:46 AM PDT by MortMan (Eschew Obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: ajolympian2004

BS. Early ( founding father days ) justices were not judges either. The constitution does not say anything about being a judge as a qualification.

I prefer a smart, God fearing person as opposed to a "judge". I am of the opinion that any American of above average intelligence is qualified, bar certified or not. The problem we have had is trying to get people that are qualified and we have seen what it got us. I dare say I would make just as good justice as any one else he could have picked. If you can read at a college level, you can interpret.

You sport analogy is off base as many sport fans idolize rookies to Hall of Fame status after one good first year.


27 posted on 10/05/2005 10:48:33 AM PDT by One Proud Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson