http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20051005_gerber.html
Still don't know if that's true, but this article sure demonstrates that such a pre-requisite isn't necessary for a great Justice.
Still haven't made my mind up about Miers, but thanks for the info.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, would not have been the only commie woman on that jaded bench- unless Breyer, Souter and Kennedy have undergone the miraculous change from lib eunuchs to fully palatined testicular sack bearers.
Critics are guilty of "Oxbridge" vs. "Redbrick." thinking. One problem in our country is that the Ivy league schools have enough money to lure bright students from all over the country so they will get undergraduate instruction inferior to that which they could obtain in their home states. The main reason is so that the Establishment can train students to have the" right" mindset.
EducationHe attended night school at the University of Minnesota, while selling insurance for Mutual Life Insurance. He then enrolled at what was then known as the St. Paul College of Law, now known as William Mitchell College of Law, receiving his degree in 1931. He took a job at the firm of Boyensen, Otis and Faricy ( which became Faricy, Burger, Moore & Costello). He also taught for twelve years at St. Paul College of Law. Harry Blackmun, his future colleague on the Supreme Court of the United States, was a longtime friend.
A "straw man" myth the Bush 'zoids and their paid pundits have created. To be replaced with a myth that "Personal Cronies of the President With Undistinguished Backgrounds and 'No Paper Trail' Make Great Conservative Justices!"
Call me crazy, but I always thought that judges should be selected based on what kind of a judge they would be.
Perhaps ninety-nine percent of whom are liberal. The very idea is offensive. How are you going to find a good apple in a bushel full of bad apples?
It'd be different if these elite law schools had roughly a 50-50 balance between conservatives and liberals, but they don't.
We have to be willing to search in unorthodox places, else our choices will be severely limited and our enemy given the luxury to script their offensive.
I think she seems to be a fine choice, has a personal record and achievements of what we would expect an upstanding citizen to have, So I say elect and be done with it.
As long as it isn't someone appointed by democrats, I'm happy.
Thank you for this post. Food for thought for anyone, let alone the Donner Party. ;)
This is totally unrelated to my feelings of unease over Harriet Miers, and I believe similar feelings of many here on FR. My feelings are: Harriet Miers just might not be conservative enough for my Republican, conservative stance. I could care less that she has never been a judge. I aslo could care less about her Alma Mater. Rather, I feel that a non-prior judge is preferable, as well as a non-Ivy League grad. I am particularly happy that she is a Christian.
However, I am concerned that a person who has never married, and reached the age of 50, may not understand life as most Americans have lived it. Janet Reno comes to mind.
This article from Scott Gerber never adresses the relative liberal/ Conservative stance of MISS Miers, maybe because he dosen't have a clue- or DOES he?
Oh boy, so this liberal author likes Bush's choice of Miers.
Now I feel better.
We have just accepted that lawyers are the best to put on the bench. I don't agree. Today's lawyers, IMO, spend their entire career attempting to bend, tweak, obfuscate, manipulate... etc, the law to get their client off or win their point. They are no longer satisfied with the main premise of our legal system that everyone is entitle to a fair trial. Fair trial does not mean winning.
Now you take these 'win at any cost" types and you place them on the bench for life and you get an endless stream of 5-4 decisions. How bright can these people be if they cannot understand the written words of a relatively short document?
If there is ambiguity maybe they can read the Federalist Papers which detail the reasons for just about everything in the Constitution.
A 5-4 decision tells me the USSC is filled will activist judges that are pushing their agenda and the Constitution be damned. Even when the 5 are on our side, I am dissatisfied that the decision was not decisive.