"She is listed TWICE in the top 100 lawyers in the country. Most don't get on that list ONCE. That's emminent."
Source? You may have posted it before but I havn't seen it.
"You're right. It should have been Miguel Estrada. Wanna take a bet on getting him past the Senate?"
Not really. But I think it would have been good for our side to have the discussion.
"After that, we are back to argument number one: "I can't just trust the President on such an important judicial nomination" "
Well, I'm not. I'm still back on qualifications. But I'll engage this one. With the other nominations he fought for, Brown, Owen, Pryor, etc., it was clear why. It didn't involve trust, it was obvious on it's face. On this pick, for the SUPREME Court, he is asking for the ultimate leap of faith. For many of us, it's extremely difficult (for many, impossible) because there's nothing (or too little) to point to to gauge what her performance as a Justice will be. You are prepared to make that leap of faith. I hope you'll be vindicated one day.
Grabbing randomly, the President is among my sources on this. (Honestly it is just a bit of Miers lore I've picked up.):
She is plenty bright. As I mentioned earlier, she was a pioneer in Texas. She just didn’t kind of opine about things; she actually led.
First woman of the Texas Bar Association; first woman of the Dallas Bar Association; a woman partner of her law firm; she led a major law firm. She was consistently rated as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States — not just one year, but consistently rated that way, as one of the top 100 lawyers.
[I wouldn't have taken a bet on Miguel Estrada passing the Senate,]But I think it would have been good for our side to have the discussion.
I'm not so sure. I would have enjoyed the spectacle, and I would have felt an invigorating contempt for Liberals, but in the long run I think it would have been more likely to hurt our cause. Rule of thumb: Victories are generally better than defeats. It doesn't always hold true, but that is the way to go if you have a choice.
With the other nominations he fought for, Brown, Owen, Pryor, etc., it was clear why. It didn't involve trust, it was obvious on it's face. On this pick, for the SUPREME Court, he is asking for the ultimate leap of faith. For many of us, it's extremely difficult (for many, impossible) because there's nothing (or too little) to point to to gauge what her performance as a Justice will be.
There is something. Bush's (and Mier's) track record on judicial appointments. If that wasn't obvious to you from the start, I suppose it won't be just because I mentione it. But there it is.