Bush Expected to Make Next Nomination TODAY

[jacktruth]

Roberts Confirmed- Bush Expected to Make Next Nomination TODAY

Today, the U.S. Senate voted, 78-22, to confirm Judge John Roberts as the new chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Roberts becomes the 17th chief justice in the Court. Now, the pressure heightens as President Bush prepares to nominate the next justice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Rumors are buzzing in every direction. "I fully expect the President will do what he has done five years straight now- follow his promise once again and nominate a justice committed to the Constitution, like Scalia and Thomas," said Free Market Foundation President Kelly Shackelford.

[Drbio]

I hope he does and I hope the dims treat the nomination in a respectful manner like they did with Roberts. Although the Ted Kennedys and John Kerrys of that party insist on being idiots, the party as a whole was finally fairly respectful of the process.

[LRB]

Actually Doc I hope that the Dems make complete asses of themselves opposing the nomination until they are summarily voted out of office in the next elections to the point where they don't have enough senators to even filabuster any longer. Then I say cut all the pork from those states with extremist Democratic Senators until their state votes them out. Once the people of Mass. see that Kerry and Kenedy are keeping them from getting any port, they'll throw their sorry butts out the door. That state propbably couldn't survive without federal government handouts.

[Drbio]

I don't think that there is enough brain power in Massachusetts to ever turn that state into a red state. It is doomed to blue libidiocy.

[dude1394]

Another obvious difference between the two parties has been shown. Ruth Bader Ginsburg one of the most liberal jurists ever to sit on the court gets confirmed with a 96-3 vote. While Roberts easinly not anywhere close to the most conservative jurist in history only gets 22 democrat votes.

They are irrelevant in this process and dubya should treat them as such.

[MavKikiNYC]

Harriet Miers.

We'll see.

Dooby?

[Mavdog]

yes, Harriet Miers, a Dallas lawyer.

talk about a surprise pick...

[u2sarajevo]

She has an impressive resume. SMU grad. First Woman President of the Texas State Bar. And has been serving in the Bush Administration so she is someone he knows well.

However, I can't find anything on her political stances. Anyone have a link or insight?

I am sure that was one of the reasons to pick her, but maybe not.

[Mavdog]

I've met Harriet Miers, she is a very strong personality and a workaholic. She was Bush's personal attorney from before Bush was Governor.

She has never been a jurist, and is known more as an administrator than a strong attorney. She is not known as a keen legal thinker by those who have worked with her (ala Roberts) but she is known for possessing a great deal of integrity.

[dalmations202]

Sounds to me like she might have some "common sense" which is my biggest prerequisite for any candidate anyway. We currently have too many judges in this country who don't seem to have any, IMO.

[Rhylan]

The AP report is keying in on her lack of judicial experience.

Anyone with more free time than me this morning care to research judicial experience for previous nominees?

[kg_veteran]

From the History News Network:

Do presidents usually select people who are already jurists?

The Constitution does not require that a justice on the Supreme Court have previous experience as a judge. Indeed, the Constitution doesn't require that justices even be lawyers. In the 1960s Walter Lippmann was repeatedly mentioned as a possible candidate for the High Court even though he lacked a legal degree and had never served as a judge. Fewer than half of the 108 people who have served on the Court had previous experience as judges. "And while judges do make up the biggest single biographical category," according to the NYT's Linda Greenhouse, "there have also been 25 practicing lawyers, 9 attorneys general or deputy attorneys general, 7 holders of other cabinet positions, 6 senators, 2 members of the House of Representatives, 3 governors, 2 solicitors general and 2 law professors." All of the current members of the Court except for Chief Justice William Rehnquist had served as judges before joining the Court. (Rehnquist was an assistant attorney general when Richard Nixon put him on the Court in 1971.)

[chumdawg]

from The Atlantic:

Now that Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement, how many remaining justices have ever held elected office? How many have previously served at the highest levels of the executive branch of government? How many have argued big-time commercial lawsuits within the past thirty-five years? How many have ever been either criminal defense lawyers or trial prosecutors? How many have presided over even a single criminal or civil trial? The answers are zero, zero, zero, one, and one, respectively. (David Souter was a New Hampshire prosecutor once upon a time, and later served as a trial judge.)

The answers would have been starkly different fifty years ago. Five of the nine justices who decided Brown v. Board of Education, in 1954, had once worked as trial prosecutors, and several had substantial hands-on experience in commercial litigation. More famously, that Court included a former governor, three former senators, two former attorneys general, two former solicitors general, and a former SEC chairman.

That Court, in other words, was intimately familiar with the everyday workings of the political and judicial systems, and with the beliefs and concerns of everyday Americans. Not so the Court that recessed in June, eight of whose members (in addition to their long tenure in the splendid isolation of the Supreme Court's marble palace) have been drawn from judgeships on appellate courts, and sometimes from academic law before that—places already far removed from the hurly-burly of our judicial and political systems. The current justices are smart and dedicated. But they're not like you and me.

[chumdawg]

I'm hearing that, a la Cheney, she headed the group responsible for choosing the nominee, and then chose herself!

Also hearing that conservatives are quite unhappy with the pick. Feel as though she may be a closet moderate.

Read an interesting opinion that suggests the "country club and chamber of commerce" Republican Party will be quite happy with the pick, and that although the party panders to the social and religious conservatives to win their votes, higher-ups feel that if Roe v. Wade were overturned it would shift the balance of power back to the Dems.

[jacktruth]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
I'm hearing that, a la Cheney, she headed the group responsible for choosing the nominee, and then chose herself!

Interesting, this is the same way Cheney was selected as VP.

Also hearing that conservatives are quite unhappy with the pick. Feel as though she may be a closet moderate.

The last time Republicans put in an unknown he turned in to Souter, a liberal. (Bush I)

Read an interesting opinion that suggests the "country club and chamber of commerce" Republican Party will be quite happy with the pick, and that although the party panders to the social and religious conservatives to win their votes, higher-ups feel that if Roe v. Wade were overturned it would shift the balance of power back to the Dems.

I think that ignoring the conservatives that elected you will do a good enough job of that. Bush and the Republican party have become the democrats of 2000. They have no leadership and no direction. Interesting that they became that way while still in power. They will lose in 2006 and unless Bush changes course, they will lose in 2008 and 2010.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
from The Atlantic:

Washington Post Article on the Miers SCOUS nomination

the White House produced statistics showing that 10 of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933 had worked for the president who picked them. Among them were the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, first tapped for the court by Richard M. Nixon, and Byron White, whose president was John F. Kennedy.

Sounds like a huge descrepancy with the facts here.

[chumdawg]

I don't understand.

[dude1394]

I think conservatives shouldn't act like children and go all goo-goo within the first 2 minutes. Our politics have become so radicalized that only the most radical political move seems to satisfy them. I am dissappointed in that it's not Brown as I really wanted to blow up the filibuster on capital hill, oh well, it will happen anyway.

When a political party actually does find a way to honestly move to the center, they will kick rear-end pretty good.

I don't know about experience needed in general, as many have promoted senators for goodness sakes as candidates. She is well, well known by dubya, NOT like Souter who was picked by someone else by what seemed like a disinterested papa-bush. I don't expect a souter, not a clarence thomas or scalia but certainly not a souter.

[kg_veteran]

I'm not sure what to think of this nomination. I've heard both pro and con arguments this morning, but what really bothers me is that Bush appears to have picked someone who wasn't as qualified as other candidates and who doesn't as clearly and unequivocally reflect a conservative viewpoint simply because he could. The charges of cronyism are harder and harder to deny when Bush makes a pick like this.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
I don't understand.

Nevermind, it's my mistake. I misread your article. It was talking about the current living justices only.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: dude1394
I think conservatives shouldn't act like children and go all goo-goo within the first 2 minutes. Our politics have become so radicalized that only the most radical political move seems to satisfy them. I am dissappointed in that it's not Brown as I really wanted to blow up the filibuster on capital hill, oh well, it will happen anyway.

There's some truth to this, because some conservatives are going nuts with this nominee, but the truth is that Bush had a historical opportunity to move the Court in one direction or another, and this pick just make it clear whether he is moving it in the right direction.

When a political party actually does find a way to honestly move to the center, they will kick rear-end pretty good.

I don't know what move to the center means in this context.

I don't know about experience needed in general, as many have promoted senators for goodness sakes as candidates. She is well, well known by dubya, NOT like Souter who was picked by someone else by what seemed like a disinterested papa-bush. I don't expect a souter, not a clarence thomas or scalia but certainly not a souter.

I'm not as concerned about experience as a judge, per se, as I am that Miers isn't the cream of the crop even among non-judicial choices.

I read Hewitt making the argument you're making about a Souter comparison. He's right, but he calls the pick a "solid, B+" nomination. I was hoping for an "A+".

[dude1394]

Move to the center: Dubya picks a conservative but it's not conservative enough and the right goes nutty. Left continues to go nutty. It just seems that our politics are so radicalized that the fringes are over-represented and not a lot of room for a moderate. It's a general comment.

Again I don't know a lot about judges, but if I were making the pick and I knew someone closely (like Roberts/Meiers) I'd give that a lot of weight. No matter the reputations of the folks, you still have to interview and feel that the person you are nominating, picking is the right person in your mind and heart. Even possibly dubya looked at what happened with Souter and decides that I'm not going to nominate anyone that I haven't worked with closely.

An interesting analysis would be how closely in general SC picks are to the presidents picking? In some respects everything is cronyism to some degree. You wouldn't pick a complete unknown it would seem.

[kg_veteran]

Good points, dude. I read a thoughtful blog entry from Beldar just a bit ago, who seems fairly happy with the pick. Jay Sekulow, whose Constitutional views are spot-on, seems very happy with the pick.

Although I'm not happy with Bush on a number of issues, I have to trust him to get this one right, I guess.

[dude1394]

If beldar is okay with it, that carries a lot of weight for me. Hugh Hewitt as well. Even though hugh really is partisan, he's not radical about it. Wanting to purge the party of all republicans that aren't fire-breathers...that's a recipe for disaster imo.

Getting rid of spector, snowe, etc. because they aren't conservative enough for the republican party, makes me wonder if I am either! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

As we can also see, a person like Santorum doesn't exactly get it done either, as he's going to have a pretty tough time of it.

[dude1394]

Cheney was talking to Rush about it as well....Beldar, hugh, dubya, cheney...Not sure how Rush feels about it other than he (like I) do not believe in giving the democrats any quarter since they won't be responsible anyway. I'm pretty okay with it. Also no matter what the dems say, dubya is NOT a flaming right-winger, never has been.

rush and cheny
-----------
RUSH LIMBAUGH: We'd like to welcome to the program Vice President Cheney, who is in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, will be speaking to the troops there soon. Our time is limited. Mr. Vice President, thanks very much for joining us, sir.

VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD B. CHENEY: Well, it's good to talk to you, Rush, from Camp Lejeune. I've had a great day down here with members of the Second Marine Division and many of them are just back from Iraq, thanking them for their service.

RUSH: It's tremendous that you're there and I know they are going to appreciate it. I know your time is short. Let me jump right in on the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers. Mr. Vice President, there's a lot of concern out there among the president's supporters that her judicial philosophy is unknown because obviously she's not been a judge. Do you know what her judicial philosophy is, and how can the public be convinced -- the president's supporters, be convinced -- that it parallels the philosophy of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas as the president had said during campaigns was his objective?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Right. Well, I'm confident that she has a conservative judicial philosophy that you'd be comfortable with, Rush. I've worked closely with Harriet for five years. I've seen her and worked closely with her, hand-in-glove with her, really, through this process of reviewing candidates for the Supreme Court, and that's how we got to the Roberts nomination. She believes very deeply in the importance of interpreting the Constitution and the laws as written. She won't legislate from the federal bench, and the president has great confidence in her judicial philosophy, has known her for many years, and I share that confidence based on my own personal experience.

RUSH: Is there a reason why conservatives' known quantities about whom the president's supporters wouldn't have questions, were not chosen -- Michael Luttig, Edith Jones and others? I mean, they've got records and the president wouldn't be facing questions he's getting today from his supporters. Any reason why those names were left off this time?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I wouldn't take this as negative on anybody. We looked at a very broad range of candidates and, frankly, I hope we have additional vacancies down the road that the president will be able to fill and some of those people you mention will be, I expect, on everybody's short list. But the president sat down and looked at all of the options and all the alternatives. He spent a great deal of time on this himself. He's convinced Harriet will do a great job on the court, as am I, and you'll find when we look back ten years from now that it will have been a great appointment.

RUSH: Well, that's what everybody is hoping. The question is: Why do we need to wait ten years? There are people that he could have nominated that we would know about now. Is there a desire in the White House because of current poll numbers or this Katrina response that just doesn't want the fight with the Senate Democrats at this time?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we've never backed off from a fight with this Congress or any other Congress. I think a good way to think about this, Rush, is that he believes that you do in fact want a variety of different kinds of experiences on the court, that for example a number of people suggested, and I think wisely, that it was important to look outside sort of the judicial fraternity for a possible appointment, that is that you'd not pick only people who've had judicial experience. Obviously if you want to go look at judicial writings and people who have made decisions on important issues, you end up looking specifically at judges. We've done a lot of that, obviously. We think in Judge Roberts we found the best of the lot in terms of an extraordinarily competent and capable jurist who has argued cases before the Supreme Court, etcetera. But we think it was important as well to have somebody like Harriet who's got a strong legal background, but who doesn't come off the bench. She's been out in private practice. She's been actively involved in public affairs for five years now. She's served ably as the staff secretary, deputy chief of staff and White House counsel to the president, and brings a different perspective than some of the other candidates would have brought to it, but, as I say, we're convinced that you indeed will find that Harriet is one of those people who believes very deeply in the Constitution and the laws as written, and that she's not going to be legislating from the bench.

RUSH: When a Democrat is president... I think back to President Clinton. When he had the opportunity to nominate Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he chose, I mean, liberals that were liberals without question, card-carrying ACLU members. They had a very strong, discernible liberal record. There was no question about them, no doubt about their activist philosophies at all. But it seems like when a Republican president selects a nominee -- and I know the president has been great with the appellate nominees, Janice Rogers Brown and Bill Pryor and Priscilla Owen and so forth, but this one has some people scratching their heads because we seem to pick a nominee here that is oriented in some way to placating Democrats. We seem to be concerned with what liberal senators are going to say about them and think of them, and so we have a nominee here with a record that is difficult to discern. What would you say to conservatives who have that fear, who really want the fight, who see the left teetering on the brink of obscurity here and irrelevance, and want this fight to just nail them to the wall and finish their dominance of this court?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think -- I guess the way I look at it is that we will have done more, this president will have done more, to change the court and in fact put on it individuals who share his judicial philosophy than any of his predecessors in modern times, that in fact we're going to have two great justices, in Roberts and Justice Miers once she's confirmed, and... In terms of the question of whether or not there's a fight, I expect there will be a fight no matter who we nominate. Look at some of the public comments already from some of the folks on the other side. It's a question the president has to sit down and make that judgment, and as I say, I think he's found a good one in Harriet Miers. I think she'll do a great job.

RUSH: Well, the early line of criticism right now is focusing on the fact..."cronyism," that she's simply a crony, that Bush is using this opportunity to reward a loyal supporter of his, and I'm... This is... This, Mr. Vice President, frankly, surprises me. This is the best they've got, and I know they're investigating her and they're going to find some things. They've got to raise money with their groups, so there will be fight to an extent. They will say some outrageous things about her just to keep their fund-raising coming in, but the fact is that right now all they can come up with is that she is a "crony," and the desire on the part of the president's supporters out there to... After working for 20 years to get to this point, to elect a president and a Republican Senate, Republican House to change the direction of this court, to avoid the liberals being able to institutionalize their beliefs in the court, taking it out of the arena of ideas and away from the opportunity to defeat it in Congress, has disappointed some of them, that they feel we could win the fight, and that we could win the fight handily and it would be a nail in the coffin of the left, and we're still now having to wait, as you say, ten years to find out -- or a number of years -- that this was a good choice. Everybody's prayers are with the president on this, but there has to be some knowledge on your part that there's some disappointment out there that there's not somebody that could be immediately rallied around, and we've got people saying that they're depressed, and they're thinking that this is a decision that has let them down and they're, frankly, a little worn out having to appease the left on all of these choices.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I guess I would take exception with the notion that somehow this was an effort to appease the left. That's not been George Bush's stock-in-trade. I've sat side by side with him now for nearly five years and seen him take on and fight some very tough fights. I think if you look at his track record on judicial appointments, not only to the Supreme Court but the appellate court and the federal district court level, I think we've picked some great justices, and they are there, obviously, will have a significant impact on the judiciary for a good many years to come, and I think we'll find the same with Harriet. The idea that Harriet is selected on the basis of cronyism makes no sense at all. This is the first woman to serve as the president of the Texas State Bar. I mean, she's been a very successful private attorney before she joined the administration, and I think if you look back, some people say, "Well, she doesn't have any judicial experience." Well, neither did Justice Rehnquist. I mean, ten out of the last 34 justices didn't serve on a judicial bench prior to the time they were appointed to the Supreme Court. You do want to have a variety of backgrounds represented there, and we think Harriet meets that test.

RUSH: Before you go -- and I know you really have a very few precious seconds left -- I have to ask you about this. Vice President Cheney, the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee in the House, Charles Rangel, has referred to President Bush as the "Bull" Connor of this generation to the American black population, and over the weekend said that you're just too sick to do the job. He would hope that you're "too sick rather than just mean and evil" to do the job. I'd like to give you a chance to respond to this. This kind of thing infuriates people that love and support you.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I've known Charlie for quite a while. I served in the House with him. I'm, frankly, surprised at his comments. It almost struck me -- they were so out of line it almost struck me that there was some-- that Charlie was having some problem. Charlie's losing it, I guess. (laughs) I'm not sure why he would resort to those kinds of comments.

RUSH: I think they're all losing it. I think it's an example of how they are just totally discombobulated and disjointed. I think they're all losing it. That's why people think they are ripe to be buried, Mr. Vice President.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we're working on it. You'll be proud of Harriet's record, Rush. Trust me.

RUSH: All right, Vice President Cheney, thanks so much.

[MavKikiNYC]

Hatch, yes.
Cronyn, yes.
Lott, not necessarily.
Brownback, maybe not.

Interesting that a (Dallas) local nominee isn't generating more discussion here. Do people here think she's qualified? Why or why not?

Conservatives Are Split On Miers Nomination
Associated Press
October 5, 2005 2:58 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- Conservatives Wednesday continued to question President Bush's nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, causing a rare fracture in the Republican Party's attempts to move the federal judiciary to the right.

"There are a lot more people -- men, women and minorities -- that are more qualified in my opinion by their experience than she is," said Sen. Trent Lott ( R., Miss.) formerly the Senate Majority leader. Sen. Lott said it isn't enough for the president to say "trust me," when it comes to the Supreme Court. "I don't just automatically salute or take a deep bow anytime a nominee is sent up," Sen. Lott told MSNBC. "I have to find out who these people are, and right now, I'm not satisfied with what I know."

Other conservatives offered Ms. Miers their support. "President Bush has an excellent record of appointing judges who recognize the proper role of the courts, which is to interpret the law according to its actual text, and not to legislate from the bench," said David N. O'Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee. "We believe that Harriet Miers is another nominee who will abide by the text and history of the Constitution."

Republican Sen. John Cornyn, a fellow Texan, a former judge and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also came out for Ms. Miers after meeting with her Wednesday morning. Sen. Cornyn said he believes her Senate Judiciary confirmation hearing could begin as early as Nov. 7.

"I don't need to reserve judgment because I know she's the right person for the job now," said Sen. Cornyn, who has known Ms. Miers for 15 years.

But Sen. Cornyn acknowledged Ms. Miers faces problems from some conservatives. "The president in a sense has disarmed some of his critics, but also made some of his supporters nervous by this nomination," Sen. Cornyn said.

Conservatives in some cases are expressing outright opposition; some are in wait-and-see mode and others are silent, all bad signs for a Bush administration used to having the full backing of all wings of the Republican Party when it takes on the Senate's minority Democrats over judicial selection.

"I'm getting reports on both sides," said Paul Weyrich, a conservative leader from the Free Congress Foundation. "Some people are quite enthused about her and other people are very upset. The grass-roots are not happy, I can tell you that."

Mr. Bush defended the 60-year-old nominee at a Rose Garden news conference Tuesday, repeatedly implying that conservatives should trust his judgment in picking Ms. Miers to succeed the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. While insisting that he doesn't recall ever talking to Ms. Miers about abortion, he pointedly said, "I know her heart." Mr. Bush, who emphasized that he is a proud conservative, said he hoped his supporters were listening. "I'm interested in someone who shares my philosophy and will share it 20 years from now," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Wednesday said the nomination was only two days old and suggested that support for Miers would grow once senators looked "at her record of accomplishment." He said that while she would answer questions put to her by senators, the White House would not make available "confidential deliberative documents" relating to work she had done for the president.

After a strong push from the president and his White House staff, some conservative groups are coming out in favor of Ms. Miers, the White House counsel and longtime Bush friend. "I trust that she will be an excellent addition to the high court and all Americans will be proud of her," said Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition.

And one of the Senate's senior conservatives, Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) was one of the first senators to announce his support for Ms. Miers. "A lot of my fellow conservatives are concerned, but they don't know her as I do," said Sen. Hatch, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "She's going to basically do what the president thinks she should, and that is be a strict constructionist" when it comes to deciding constitutional issues.

But many Senate conservatives are withholding judgment, and House Republican leaders have said little to nothing about Ms. Miers. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a Judiciary Committee Republican and a possible Republican Party candidate in 2008, even invoked a favorite target of conservatives when talking about Ms. Miers. "There's precious little to go on and a deep concern that this would be a Souter-type candidate," he said, referring to Supreme Court Justice David Souter, a little-known judge nominated for the court by the first President Bush. Justice Souter later turned out to be liberal on the bench.

"The circumstances seem to be very similar," said Sen. Brownback, who will meet with Ms. Miers Thursday. "Not much track record, people vouching for her, yet indications of a different thought pattern earlier in life."

[dude1394]

She seems imminently qualified to me. To be honest I'm pretty dissappointed in the response from conservatives. I think they are acting just like left-wing nutheads. They are spoiling for a fight more than getting a solid conservaitve on the bench. I also sort of wanted a knock-down-drag-out fight as well, but can certainly see dubya deciding not to do it. I thought what we wanted was judges who wouldn't legislate from the bench, not someone who is a "movement conservative".

My wife was walking by a television discussion on this and her comment was something like..
"If I were an SMU grad or someone who wasn't a lawyer from the right school I'd be pretty upset with the rude discussions going on. What a bunch of snobs.". She wouldn't know a conservative from a rock. I sort of feel the same way, she's easily qualified but the "true-blue" conservatives (imo) have their panties in a wad because she's not their pick.

When will they learn that Dubya does what he thinks is right and they can blow it out their ear. Some have said that she will probably be like clarence thomas (and somehow that's not good enough, puhleeze).

[dude1394]

The argument that she might be another Souter imo is the absolute worst agrument. She's been his lawyer for something like 10 years now hasn't she? George the first has Sununu for goodness sakes pick souter. Looks to me like Dubya has gone out of his way to make DAMN SURE that she won't be.

One example is that some conservatives are saying that she's too old? She was born in '45. Janice Brown who they are throwing out there as "acceptable" is '49. 4 years difference for goodness sakes.

Beldar has it about right to me.

[Mavdog]

I don't have any opinion yet on if Miers is the right choice, but what is clear about Bush selecting her for nomination is this:

It isn't what you know, it is who you know.

[Drbio]

What a crock. You have no idea mavdog.

She was evaluated on her ability or she would not have received the nomination. I'm not saying that knowing Bush (and he having the insight into her abilities due to that experience didn't help) but to dismiss this nomination as a pure "who you know" is just bunk.

[Rhylan]

Because we all know that Bill Clinton selected EVERY discretionary nominee from 1993 - 2000 by giving all adult Americans a standardized aptitude test and selecting the person with the top score.

Horsepoo.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
What a crock. You have no idea mavdog.

She was evaluated on her ability or she would not have received the nomination. I'm not saying that knowing Bush (and he having the insight into her abilities due to that experience didn't help) but to dismiss this nomination as a pure "who you know" is just bunk.

really?
did Miers EVER argue a case in front of the court edit: Supreme Court? no, never.
has Miers practiced law in recently? no, she's been on the WH staff for the last 5 years.
has Miers published any legal writings in the past decade? no, she hasn't.
has Miers been counsel in any major legal cases? no. none.
has Miers ever served as a jurist? no, not ever.

It appears that YOU have no idea. Miers can prove to be an intelligent, contributing member of the court, yet to take a position that her career has provided the resume which establishes her as the best candidate for a Supreme Court nomination is ludicrous.

[LRB]

It isn't what you know, it is who you know.

What a pile of partisan rhetorical crap. Sure knowing Bush helped, but it wouldn't have meant a thing if she wasn't qualified. There are lots of people who know Bush, but he's never nominated anyone to a judgeship unless they had an extensive legal background. Now if you want to amend it to: It isn't what you know, it's who knows what you know. In otherwords being qualified isn't enough alone, you still have to have your qualification come to the attention of someone who's a decision maker. This is far different from giving you inept nephew or brother-in-law or someone else a job without them having any where near the qualifications to perform the duties of that job with any sense of competency.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Rhylan
Because we all know that Bill Clinton selected EVERY discretionary nominee from 1993 - 2000 by giving all adult Americans a standardized aptitude test and selecting the person with the top score.

Horsepoo.

There is NO comparison of either of Clinton's nominees work experience and Miers. Miers pales in comparison.

Biography of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, was born in Brooklyn, New York, March 15, 1933. She married Martin D. Ginsburg in 1954, and has a daughter, Jane, and a son, James. She received her B.A. from Cornell University, attended Harvard Law School, and received her LL.B. from Columbia Law School. She served as a law clerk to the Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, from 1959–1961. From 1961–1963, she was a research associate and then associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure. She was a Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law from 1963–1972, and Columbia Law School from 1972–1980, and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California from 1977–1978. In 1971, she was instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU’s General Counsel from 1973–1980, and on the National Board of Directors from 1974–1980. She was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980. President Clinton nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993.

Biography of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Stephen G. Breyer.
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice, was born in San Francisco, California, August 15, 1938. He married Joanna Hare in 1967, and has three children— Chloe, Nell, and Michael. He received an A.B. from Stanford University, a B.A. from Magdalen College, Oxford, and an LL.B. from Harvard Law School. He served as a law clerk to Justice Arthur Goldberg of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1964 Term, as a Special Assistant to the Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Antitrust, 1965–1967, as an Assistant Special Prosecutor of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 1973, as Special Counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1974–1975, and as Chief Counsel of the committee, 1979–1980. He was an Assistant Professor, Professor of Law, and Lecturer at Harvard Law School, 1967–1994, a Professor at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, 1977–1980, and a Visiting Professor at the College of Law, Sydney, Australia and at the University of Rome. From 1980–1990, he served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and as its Chief Judge, 1990–1994. He also served as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 1990–1994, and of the United States Sentencing Commission, 1985–1989. President Clinton nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994

INFORMATION ON HARRIET MIERS
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release - October 3, 2005
Harriet Miers Biography
* Harriet Miers was born in Dallas, Texas on August 10, 1945.
* Ms. Miers received her bachelor's degree in Mathematics in 1967 and J.D. in 1970 from Southern Methodist University.
* Upon graduation, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970 to 1972.
* In 1972, Ms. Miers became the first woman hired at Dallas’s Locke Purnell Rain Harrell.
* In March 1996, her colleagues elected her the first female President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers. She became the first female to lead a Texas firm of that size.
* Locke, Purnell eventually merged with a Houston firm and became Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, where Ms. Miers became Co-Managing Partner and helped manage an over-400-lawyer firm.
* Ms. Miers had a very distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co. and SunGard Data Systems Inc.
* Throughout her career, she has been very active in the legal community and has blazed a trail for other women to follow.
* In 1985, Ms. Miers was selected as the first woman to become President of the Dallas Bar Association.
* In 1992, she became the first woman elected President of the State Bar of Texas. Ms. Miers served as the President of the State Bar of Texas from 1992 to 1993.
* She played an active role in the American Bar Association. She was one of two candidates for the Number 2 position at the ABA, chair of the House of Delegates, before withdrawing her candidacy to move to Washington to serve in the White House. Ms. Miers also served as the chair of the ABA’s Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice.
* On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the Nation’s 100 most powerful attorneys, and as one of the Nation’s top 50 women lawyers.
* Ms. Miers also has been involved in local and statewide politics in Texas.
* In 1989, she was elected to a two-year term as an at-large candidate on the Dallas City Council. She chose not to run for re-election when her term expired.
* Ms. Miers also served as general counsel for the transition team of Governor-elect George W. Bush in 1994.
* From 1995 until 2000, Ms. Miers served as Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, a voluntary public service position she undertook while maintaining her legal practice and other responsibilities. When then-Governor Bush appointed Ms. Miers to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission, it was mired in scandal, and she served as a driving force behind its cleanup.
* Ms. Miers came to Washington D.C. in 2001 and began a period of distinguished and dedicated service that continues today.
* She was appointed to be Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary on January 20, 2001.
* In 2003, Ms. Miers was promoted to be Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff.
* Ms. Miers has served as Counsel to the President since February, 2005.
* She is single and very close to her family: two brothers and her mother live in Dallas and a third brother lives in Houston.

[LRB]

There is NO comparison of either of Clinton's nominees work experience and Miers. Miers pales in comparison.

Except for not being a judge, I don't any more difference between Miers and Ginsburg or Breyers than between Ginsburg and Breyers. Besides there being plenty of precident for nominating people without experience as a judge for the SCOUS, Miers brings several areas of experience from her work that neither Ginsburg nor Breyers appear to have. It certainly can be argued that other people seem to be better qualified than she does, but to argue that she isn't qualified seems more than a little biased by partisan politics.

[MavKikiNYC]

Except for not being a judge...

Actually, isn't that supposed to be one of the strengths of her nomination? That she brings a diversity of experience to the Supreme Court, along with a diversity of perspective, and applied experience?

For the record, I'm somewhat ambivalent about her nomination---but NOT because she doesn't appear to be qualified. To hell with all of this hypocritical condescension about her background and experience--as if there is only ONE set of experiences that can qualify a person to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Diversity, diversity, diverstiy---but only the kind of diversity THEY approve of. F'em.

By all accounts she's a very sharp, very intelligent person, who didn't get to the position she's risen to because of WHO she knew, but rather because of the job she was capable of doing.

And I'd say that in any case for any justice, indeed for any political figure it's never one or the other---it's always both: WHAT you know, as well as WHOM you know.

As if it should be an indictment against her that she's been legal counsel to one of the most powerful offices in the world for the last five years.

Absurd.

[kg_veteran]

The more I've evaluated Miers, the less I care about her experience level, particularly as a justice. As noted above, fewer than half of the Supreme Court justices in our history have had prior judicial experience. What I'm more concerned about is her worldview, her viewpoint on the issues of our time, and her beliefs regarding the role of a Supreme Court justice.

[Mavdog]

The lack of experience as a judge is no reason to disqualify Miers. As I said, I don't oppose her nomination.

at the same time, it is evident that she has shallow depth in her resume when it comes to the courts. she participated in few cases, none that i understand which were notable. she is sort of the "anti-roberts".

that is not a positive. but also not a reason to oppose her.

yet to say that she is as qualified as roberts, or the rest of the court members when they were appointed, is ignoring the facts of her career. she was once a practicing attorney, then she moved more and more into administrative positions. the others have immersed themselves into the profession.

[Drbio]

In your weak ass opinion only. Those who intelligently evaluate the facts realize that she is very qualified.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - Are you a lawyer? Just curious. Anyway, I think it's pretty funny what people consider to be appropriate "qualifications" to be a Supreme Court justice. You say that Roberts and the rest have "immersed themselves into the profession." I say they've immersed themselves (Roberts particularly) into a very rare niche of the profession that is very much detached from the real world.