President Bush announced his pick for Sandry Day O'Conner's court seat - White House Counsel Harriet Miers. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171050,00.html Seems to be a rather savvy pick by Bush. Apparently she was recommended by both Republicans and Democrats. She has a low profile and has never been a judge, so there is no paper trail that could indicate any of her views. This nomination process should probably be a bit more eventful than John Roberts' nomination.
Apparently Bush learned nothing from the Mike Brown appointment. Now he's appointing another unqualifed political crony, this time to the Supreme Court. FEMA apointees can be fired when they prove incompetent. A Supreme Court Justice is appointed for life and we are stuck with them if they prove incompetent. Congress must do their job and force the president to appoint capable, proven judges to important lifetime judicial positions. This woman has never served as a judge. How can anybody possibly assess her for her judicial abilities with a ZERO record. She is being appointed strictly for her political lock-step with the president, having been his personal attorney for years. Unlike the Roberts nomination, this candidate does not have impeccable judicial credentials. She has none at all, in fact. Whether you liked Roberts politics or not, he was unquestionably a qualified judge. I don't think he should have gone straight to Chief Justice, but he was clearly one of the best judicial candidates out there. You can't tell me that there aren't dozens of qualified, experienced judges that are better candidates than George Bush's personal counsel. This nomination is awfully lame, obviously partisan, and will be contested loudly.
I'm somewhat skeptical, as well. But keep in mind, Rehnquist was never a judge, either. It's not a requirement for the court. The article even said that both Republicans and Democrats recommended a nominee that didn't necessarily have a judicial background. I'm sure her confirmation hearing will be much more intense than Roberts', but with this nominee, they may be able to get some clear cut answers.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the nomination as well. I'll be curious to see how the hearings go, because all we know about her at this point is: -- She used to be a Democrat. -- Extremely loyal to Bush. -- VERY successful career as an attorney -- Extremely loyal to Bush. -- Never been a judge -- Apparently very hard worker -- Extremely loyal to Bush
Neither did Chief Justice Rehnquist or about a third of the past 35 or so justices. What is your point?
great point. i dont think experience is a huge issue. i would appoint whoever agrees with me. and i would not care about getting somebody who was moderate either, i would appoint them based on how much they agree with me, and how much i trusted them, regardless of whether they have experience as a a judge. besides, what does it matter, the supreme court doesnt do much that i care about.
Since no one but Bush knows much about this woman, it's pointless to debate what this means. So to debate something we can talk about, here is this. In 2004, Bush appointed her White House counsel, calling her "a talented lawyer whose great integrity, legal scholarship and grace have long marked her as one of America's finest lawyers." He articulated his high regard for her more memorably during a 1996 awards ceremony when he called her "a pit bull in size 6 shoes." A pit bull? No, a pit bull is a thing of beauty. She looks more like someone whose face caught fire then someone tried to put it out with an icepick.
That perhaps she is less qualified than a couple of dozen other candidates. That she is perhaps a Bush ideologue with an agenda. Is it not obvious that the circumstances of previous justices, however shady or noble they may be, mean nothing when considering this candidates credentials?
And yet you have somehow examined her credentials and deemed her unqualified for the bench in a matter of hours. Damn, wish I was that smart...
