Who cares if Miers votes the "Right way". It's about who's better qualified!

Weekly Standard ^ | 10/19/2005 | Duncan Currie

[aceintx]

Its always been about her qualifications and abilities. She is not the most qualified and it’s becoming obvious that she may only be in the adequate category of persons who could sit on the Supreme Court.

[rhombus]

Test results? Written? Oral?

[pissant]

Said it many times before. I'll rather have a group of conservative dog catchers on the SCOTUS that a gaggle of "intellectual" Harvard lawyers.

[dirtboy]

If Miers lacks the sweeping constitutional expertise needed to persuade wavering justices on individual cases

Quite frankly, I doubt this happens much nowadays. Anyone who can vote to uphold McCain-Feingold won't be swayed by any kind of constitutional expertise. If you can ignore "Congress shall pass no law", you can ignore anything.

[wideawake]

The only qualification needed for the job is to vote the right way.

Yogi Berra would have made a better justice than Earl Warren.

[rhombus]

I'll rather have a group of conservative dog catchers on the SCOTUS that a gaggle of "intellectual" Harvard lawyers.

Ah ha! So you admit it... she's a dog catcher!! But seriously, I hear Hillary Clinton is the smartest woman in America. Why? Because a lot of people say so. I sure don't want to see her sitting on the SC.

[aceintx]

The only qualification needed for the job is to vote the right way.

What determines voting "The right way" if you have no guiding principles or consistent judicial philosophy

[rwfromkansas]

It actually is about who can get confirmed and qualified enough. Both.

She fits the bill best in Bush's mind for whatever reason.

[Shalom Israel]

The only qualification needed for the job is to vote the right way.

Then we can't trust Miers. What we really need is someone so completely retarded that he's incapable of voting any way other than he's told, and then make Scalia his handler.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Phony argument. It's all about the way she votes. This is just an attempt, albeit a somewhat noble one, to ditch Miers AND be consistent with past Republican rhetoric. So we say it's about qualifications and abilities. Which leaves us asking, was Ginsburg more qualified. Should she be more acceptable to conservatives? I would hope not.

It's about how she votes and lying won't help. We want her to vote in a legitimate way -- a Constittuional way. Judges have only limited Constitutional power. When they legislate, they usurp that power. So the "how she votes" argument is true, even though it's a distortion too, in that, for the right, it is not about imposing their ideology. It's about butting out of ideology and just ruling on the laws and Constitution AS WRITTEN and ratified by the people, not the judges.

[aceintx]

The only qualification needed for the job is to vote the right way.

How do you decide how to vote "the right way" if you have no guiding principles or consistent judicial philosophy

[rwfromkansas]

Exactly. Yes, we need some justices on the Court who can sway others. That is largely why Bush nominated Roberts. That guy can probably persuade others.

But, we don't need ALL justices to be like this.

Some times, we just need a reliable conservative.

[frogjerk]

Said it many times before. I'll rather have a group of conservative dog catchers on the SCOTUS that a gaggle of "intellectual" Harvard lawyers.

This nomination is insulting to all the conservatives who paid top dollar for an expensive piece of sheepskin with the right University on it.

Lincoln would be looked down upon today if he was nominated to SCOTUS. Can you actually believe a man could teach himself law? GASP!

[Wolfstar]

Its always been about her qualifications and abilities.

So actual votes on the court don't matter. Only qualifications. I assume, then, that you would rather have someone with a bio along these lines:

She attended both Harvard and Columbia law schools and served on the law review of both, an achievement that generally bodes well for a distinguished legal career. She tied for first place in her graduating class. As classmate put it, she was "scary smart."

She become a clerk for a U.S. district judge and later became the first female tenured professor at Columbia School of Law. She then became a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Who is she?

Answer: Ruth Bader Ginsberg

[thoughtomator]

It's not about her resume, it's about whether the nominee understands why the judicial branch is a problem and what the proper method for reversing its usurpations will be. Merely voting against Roe v. Wade is completely insufficient, the entire edifice of judicial legislative action must be torn down.

[traderrob6]

BS....if she votes the "right" way, it's proof of her constitutional acumen. A ninety percent concurrence rate with Scalia/Thomas and I would wish her on the court untill she's 110.

[wideawake]

Always voting the right way implies that someone has guiding principles. If they didn't, their voting would be erratic.

[TheDon]

The Meritocracy Party, Is it still the GOP?

In this case, meritocracy is code for elitist.

[pissant]

Seems to me my hero, Ronald Reagan, former Roosevelt democrat, didn't have a stellar pedigree before he commenced to re-arrange the world.

[Steve_Seattle]

They also said Clarence Thomas wasn't the best qualified, and I'm sure he wasn't, but in my opinion he's the best justice on the court right now.