Harriet Miers is her name, and (are you ready for this?) she has zero judicial experience, having served as a private practice attorney for 29 years.

#1 - she's from his inner circle

 

#2 - she's from Texas

 

and therefore,

 

#3 - the Democrats HAVE to be salivating waiting for the filibuster - or hell, maybe she'll just plain get shot down.

Harriet Miers is her name, and (are you ready for this?) she has zero judicial experience, having served as a private practice attorney for 29 years.

That doesn't seem like a good idea.

Rehnquist had NO judicial experience either.

 

Just food for thought.

Rehnquist had NO judicial experience either.

 

Just food for thought.

Not really helping her case, to be honest. . .

Actually, I seem to remember that conservatives aren't huge fans of hers either. Unless something really outrageous comes out - its his perogative. Confirm her.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the administration to consider Miers, two congressional officials said. Asked to elaborate, Reid’s office told NBC News that he had “urged the White House to take a look at her — but that is it.”

 

Now ain't that interesting. I bet he does a 180 on this deal.

Drudge is reporting that Miers gave money to Clinton and Gore's campaigns. Interesting.

 

They are also posting this snippet

 

Conservative Group Opposes 'Bush Packing' Appointment of Miers

Mon Oct 03 2005 09:52:34 ET

 

To National Desk

 

Contact: Jesse Binnall of the Public Advocate

 

FALLS CHURCH, Va., Oct. 3 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio has issued the following statement following the appointment of Harriet Miers to serve on the Supreme Court.

 

"The President's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Instead we were given 'stealth nominees,' who have never ruled on controversial issues, more in the mold of the disastrous choice of David Souter by this President's father.

 

"When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this President has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials. This attempt at 'Bush Packing' the Supreme Court must not be allowed to pass the Senate and we will forcefully oppose this nomination."

http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_politic...rriet_Miers.php

 

She hasn't donated to the Democrats since 1988 I think, it's been all red since then.

Not really helping her case, to be honest. . .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Its extremely common for Supreme Court justices to have no previous judicial experience.

 

I'm virtually certain that Jay, Ellsworth, and Marshall (#'s 1, 3, and 4) had zero judicial experience. #2, Rutledge, had only his stint as an Associate Justice (which he had without prior judicial experience)

 

Roger Taney was Attorney General and Treasury Secretary. Salmon Chase was also the Treasury Secretary. It wasn't until the 1870's when we had a Chief Justice who actually had a law degree.

 

Earl Warren had no judicial experience and got the Chief Justice spot as part of a political deal.

 

Does this mean that we should hail Miers? No. But I think it certainly nullifies "no judicial experience" as a useful attack.

Does this mean that we should hail Miers? No. But I think it certainly nullifies "no judicial experience" as a useful attack.

My point was more that Rehnquist wasn't the best thing in the world to happen to the court, and if you wanted to say that no experience matters, I would have pointed to Marshall first.

It appears at first glance that the President has chosen not to play politics with his Supreme Court nominations. That's a very good thing and something that his father AND Bill Clinton both failed to do.

My point was more that Rehnquist wasn't the best thing in the world to happen to the court, and if you wanted to say that no experience matters, I would have pointed to Marshall first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A conservative would, of course, disagree.

 

That's why I would have used the examples of Rehnquist, Warren, and Marshall. If you don't like at least one of them, then please report to a Political Science department near you to be extensively studied.

It appears at first glance that the President has chosen not to play politics with his Supreme Court nominations. That's a very good thing and something that his father AND Bill Clinton both failed to do.

From Senator Orrin Hatch's Biography:

    [it] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.

 

    President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.

 

    I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.

 

    Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

 

    I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

 

    In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.

 

Limbaugh hates it. Must be good.

William Kristol:

 

the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.

 

I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/200...danddemoralized

Now ain't that interesting.  I bet he does a 180 on this deal.

 

Sure doesn't look like it.

 

From the Washington Post:

 

"I like Harriet Miers," said Reid, who had voted against John Roberts as chief justice in Roberts' confirmation vote last week, in a statement. "In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."

 

Later when meeting with Miers at the Capitol, Reid noted that 39 other people have been appointed to the Supreme Court without having experience as a judge. He praised her experience as a trial lawyer, an occupation he shares with her.

 

"So anyone with that background makes me feel good -- someone who has been a courtroom, tried cases, answered interrogatories, done all those things that lawyers need to do," Reid said.

 

EDIT: Linkage

Edited October 3, 200520 yr by Mplssoxfan

Well the nomination is at least now being scored as a victory for Democrats and a blow to the radical right so Reid shouldn't flip flop here. I'm not sure how this is going to affect Bush, other than it is going to anger his more radical support.

William Kristol:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/200...danddemoralized

 

LMFAO. I wish people would make up there minds... first Bush sucks because he won't listen to anyone else, then we he listens to other people and backs down a bit, he is a wimp like his father. Priceless.

Sounds like she's a far cry from the bedrock conservative nominee Bush promised the religious right, as was Roberts, so I think it's the best the left could have hoped for. SCOTUS mominations who are simultaneously at least somewhat centrist in their views and also openly fractous to the Bush/GOP social conservative support base is a better prospect than I would have figured on six months ago.

 

I'm not happy with the new levels of cronyism achieved by this administration, of course, but I'm well past being surprised by it at this point.

Intriguing choice. You know, it isn't even required that one be a lawyer to be eligible to serve on the Supreme Court.

Intriguing choice.  You know, it isn't even required that one be a lawyer to be eligible to serve on the Supreme Court.

I know. I've been patiently waiting by the phone for weeks, but apparently I'm being passed over yet again.

 

Miers did interview me... they thought about packing the whole court with Michigan City folk. But I guess it didn't pan out.

 

Too bad, I look awesome in a robe.

Its extremely common for Supreme Court justices to have no previous judicial experience .....

I don't believe this is accurate. Unless you are referring to some period more than 50 or so years ago.

 

Just theoretically, and not knowing much about this particular nominee, I think it could be a good thing to have one or more Supremes with "real world experience," as long as it doesn't go back to trying to pack the court with political hacks and cronies. Anyway, the pendulum swings in all things political. This sort of choice was probably inevitable (and inspired). I don't think she's just a trial balloon. She's in.