michaeledward
Grandmaster
This woman was just nominated for one of the most powerful jobs on the planet, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Comments, anyone?
Comments, anyone?
Harriet Miers
- Thread starter michaeledward
- Start date
How long has she been a judge?
Not sure of the numbers, but just like the Chief Justice is not always chosen from those already on the BENCH, some of those posted to the Supreme Court of the USA, are lawyers and served in differnet functions but never as a judge.
The precedence is there.
As to the lady in question, the comments I have heard are that she was chosen for her loyalty to the Bush team and her long service to the party, but not having any real public opinions, nor anything she has had written down for people to hang her hat on.
I can only speculate at this time, and that would onlt make it look even worse, so I shall refain for a few.
The precedence is there.
As to the lady in question, the comments I have heard are that she was chosen for her loyalty to the Bush team and her long service to the party, but not having any real public opinions, nor anything she has had written down for people to hang her hat on.
I can only speculate at this time, and that would onlt make it look even worse, so I shall refain for a few.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Ms. Miers is a lawyer who received her education from a small, undistinguished law school. She has never served as a judge. In the 90's, Ms. Miers was then Governor Bush's personal legal advisor. During the first term of the Bush Administration, Ms. Miers was Secretary to the President - no paper crossed the desk in the oval office without her approval. For the past year, she has been the White House legal council, apparently taking the position of Alberto Gonzalez when he was elevated to Attorney General of the United States.
The Constitution says the President can choose who he wishes to serve on the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no requirement that the nominee even have legal background.
Approximately 35 of the 109 members of the Supreme Court had not served as judges prior to their appointment to the Court. The most recent of those was William Rehnquist, the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The Constitution says the President can choose who he wishes to serve on the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no requirement that the nominee even have legal background.
Approximately 35 of the 109 members of the Supreme Court had not served as judges prior to their appointment to the Court. The most recent of those was William Rehnquist, the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
evenflow1121
2nd Black Belt
I sort of do like the fact that she attended a small undistinguished law school because it allows me to believe that individuals attending non ivy league law schools still have a shot at the nation's highest judiciary. Justice Thurgood Marshall for example, attended Howard, and was a very fine judge and a brilliant man. The fact that she has never been a judge however, bothers me some what.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Oddly, conservatives are somewhat unhappy with her, while liberals are smiling quite brightly at her nomination.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday nominated White House insider Harriet Miers for a Supreme Court vacancy, triggering outrage from conservatives who questioned whether she would uphold their political views....
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=9815435&src=rss/topNews
I would get such a tickle out of all this if she and Roberts proved to be all that conservatives fear. Why, I might be downright gleeful.
Roberts isn't the boogeyman some think he is, incidentally. Two law professors here clerked with him for Rhenquist, and they both stayed good friends with him. One is a liberal, the other a moderate. Both say he won't stray too far to the right.
As for her, not much is known yet, from what I've seen.
As for judging experience, or lack of it, Rhenquist was never a judge. Other justices lacked that experience as well. Standing before the bench isn't the same as sitting behind it, I suppose. Still, I imagine many lawyers know the law better than some of the judges they've argued before.
Regards,
Steve
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday nominated White House insider Harriet Miers for a Supreme Court vacancy, triggering outrage from conservatives who questioned whether she would uphold their political views....
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=9815435&src=rss/topNews
I would get such a tickle out of all this if she and Roberts proved to be all that conservatives fear. Why, I might be downright gleeful.
Roberts isn't the boogeyman some think he is, incidentally. Two law professors here clerked with him for Rhenquist, and they both stayed good friends with him. One is a liberal, the other a moderate. Both say he won't stray too far to the right.
As for her, not much is known yet, from what I've seen.
As for judging experience, or lack of it, Rhenquist was never a judge. Other justices lacked that experience as well. Standing before the bench isn't the same as sitting behind it, I suppose. Still, I imagine many lawyers know the law better than some of the judges they've argued before.
Regards,
Steve
tradrockrat
2nd Black Belt
arnisador said:
How about a Martial Artist? I hear they are good people...:whip:
mrhnau
Senior Master
well, you still need to be careful. I don't want GW going down to the local Taco Bell and picking out the local burrito stuffer. Still, I'm sure there would be some good non-lawyer/judge people out there. However, unless they are in political science or something related to law, they are going to have a huge learning curve. There is still going to be a learning curve, but I don't want someone w/ no experience in the field making decisions that will possibly dramatically alter my life.arnisador said:
perhaps I should suggest GW nominate you Arnisador? hehe
There is some talk that GW might have to nominate another judge eventually. Has there been precedent for a single president having to replace so many judges? (not creating new seats, rather just replacing)
MrH
I think having one such person, out of 9, brings a nice diversity to the court. I favor that.Ping898 said:
Having three would be too many, but one is good. As I said, I'd also like to see one non-lawyer on the court; that again allows for a fresh look at things that could be beneficial.
*slips arni a $50*
