CNN TV: Next Supreme Court Pick

[BDawg]

First, he picks a Chief Justice who's only been a judge for a few years, now a justice who's never been a judge at all.

What a great, partisan pick.

Maybe try picking someone who's been a lifelong judge and not a Republican party hired gun?

Whatever happened to uniter, not a divider?

 

[BDawg]

CNN.com

President Bush to nominate White House counsel Harriett Miers to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, CNN has learned.

 

[conjur]

Tim Russert called her the "Cheney pick". She's close with Cheney, esp. during his time when he was looking for a V.P. nominee (and decided on himself).

Since she's part of the WH counsel, I wonder what her part was in the torture memo?

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: BDawg
First, he picks a Chief Justice who's only been a judge for a few years, now a justice who's never been a judge at all.

What a great, partisan pick.

Maybe try picking someone who's been a lifelong judge and not a Republican party hired gun?

Whatever happened to uniter, not a divider?

Roberts is a staple in and out of the supreme court. Not sure about this pick though. There is, however, no requirement that the nominee be a judge. Maybe its better to get someone who isn't tainted by the politics of the system where legislation from the bench has gone amok.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero

Originally posted by: BDawg
First, he picks a Chief Justice who's only been a judge for a few years, now a justice who's never been a judge at all.

What a great, partisan pick.

Maybe try picking someone who's been a lifelong judge and not a Republican party hired gun?

Whatever happened to uniter, not a divider?

Roberts is a staple in and out of the supreme court. Not sure about this pick though. There is, however, no requirement that the nominee be a judge. Maybe its better to get someone who isn't tainted by the politics of the system where legislation from the bench has gone amok.

Legislation from the bench or judicial activism is an excuse people throw out when they don't like a decision.

I'd personally rather have someone with judiciary experience than someone without. Sure, there's no requirement, but that doesn't mean you should go out of your way to pick a crony.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: BDawg
First, he picks a Chief Justice who's only been a judge for a few years, now a justice who's never been a judge at all.

What a great, partisan pick.

Maybe try picking someone who's been a lifelong judge and not a Republican party hired gun?

Whatever happened to uniter, not a divider?

I think your beef is with politics and politicians. Politicians on the left, right, middle are guilty of partisanship and cronyism.

 

[Taggart]

She will be the next Justice, so get used to it. Expect the nuclear option if the Dems filibuster.

 

[BBond]

Oh, great, another Bush cronie.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

She seems to me like a strange pick, and I'll be interested in how the ABA rates her qualifications. She has been an extremely successful as an attorney, including running the largest law firm in Texas, but that doesn't imply a lot of experience as a litigator - I have no idea whether she has much experience in that arena, or expertise in constitutional law.

She may be a solid pick, but she seems marginally qualified, and nobody seems toknow a lot about her. This may be an odd confirmation process, because I doubt she will get strong support from either party, outside the support Republicans feel obligated to give.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DonVito
She seems to me like a strange pick, and I'll be interested in how the ABA rates her qualifications. She has been an extremely successful as an attorney, including running the largest law firm in Texas, but that doesn't imply a lot of experience as a litigator - I have no idea whether she has much experience in that arena, or expertise in constitutional law.

She may be a solid pick, but she seems marginally qualified, and nobody seems toknow a lot about her. This may be an odd confirmation process, because I doubt she will get strong support from either party, outside the support Republicans feel obligated to give.

She has NEVER been a judge.

She HAS been Bush's personal attorney though so in Bush's view she's as qualified as say, Brownie was for FEMA director. It's all about who you know, not what you know with Bush. And that makes sense since Bush's qualifications have NOTHING to do with what HE knows.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Taggart
She will be the next Justice, so get used to it. Expect the nuclear option if the Dems filibuster.

 

[slyedog]

she will have a confirmation hearing like anyone else. but to condemm her just because Bush picked her is ignorant. but the whacko's have begun.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

This is just more evidence of Bush's idiocy. Why would you pick someone without any judicial experience for the most important court in the United States? Perhaps she'd be a great nominee for a Federal District Court; no problem. But the U.S. Supreme Court? U.S. Supreme Court nominees should be judges who have years of experience having considered the nuances of U.S. Constitutional law, preferably judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals (the courts that are directly below the Supreme court) or judges from state supreme courts. A federal district court judge wouldn't be so awful, nor would an accomplished constitutional law scholar (law school professor specializing in constitutional law).

But choosing an attorney with zero judicial experience who hasn't really specialized in constutional law? It's almost like a deriliction of duty on Bush's part.

His choice of nominee is an insult to every judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and also to ever federal district judge. I hope the Senate shoots her down.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: slyedog
she will have a confirmation hearing like anyone else. but to condemm her just because Bush picked her is ignorant. but the whacko's have begun.

To support her just because Bush picked her is also ignorant. Those whackos have begun, too. The scales of Justice ya know, they will equal out. I would have much rather preferred a nominee who was a judge, wouldn't you?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BBond

She has NEVER been a judge.

She HAS been Bush's personal attorney though so in Bush's view she's as qualified as say, Brownie was for FEMA director. It's all about who you know, not what you know with Bush. And that makes sense since Bush's qualifications have NOTHING to do with what HE knows.

Most justices in the history of the Supreme Court, including the late Justice Rehnquist, have had no judicial experience.

I wouldn't say Ms. Miers has credentials nearly as marginal as Mike Brown's, but she certainly isn't one of history's best-qualified nominees.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
This is just more evidence of Bush's idiocy. Why would you pick someone without any judicial experience for the most important court in the United States? Perhaps she'd be a great nominee for a Federal District Court; no problem. But the U.S. Supreme Court? U.S. Supreme Court nominees should be judges who have years of experience having considered the nuances of U.S. Constitutional law, preferably judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals (the courts that are directly below the Supreme court) or judges from state supreme courts. A federal district court judge wouldn't be so awful, nor would an accomplished constitutional law scholar (law school professor specializing in constitutional law).

But choosing an attorney with zero judicial experience who hasn't really specialized in constutional law? It's almost like a deriliction of duty on Bush's part.

His choice of nominee is an insult to every judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and also to ever federal district judge. I hope the Senate shoots her down.

Like Don said, this is not the first time, nor will it be the last. She will have a confirmation process like everyone else. Should be interesting to see how this one plays out. The Roberts confirmation was sort of anti climactic, this one holds some promise to be entertaining if nothing else.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: slyedog
she will have a confirmation hearing like anyone else. but to condemm her just because Bush picked her is ignorant. but the whacko's have begun.

The whackos? You mean the majority of Americans who disapprove of this president? Those whackos?

She was the president's personal lawyer at one point. We've all seen this guy in action for the last 5 years or so. His decisions leave MUCH to be desired.

And, what's this? She worked for Locke Liddell & Sapp that has links to the indicted TRMPAC?
http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1781

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6652757/site/newsweek


This is just more of the Bush family cronyism at action.

 

[Zebo]

Congratulations, Harriet. She looks like a very nice lady.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/hmiers-bio.html

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

I have to agree and I had no problem with Roberts. This is like an orderly being nominated to chief of staff in a hospital. But like Don said, this is not the first time, nor will it be the last.

Your analogy is inapt IMO. I don't personally think judicial experience should be a prerequisite for a SC nomination, though it's helpful, particularly in this era of anti-judicial sentiment by uninformed Republicans. Ms. Miers has an impressive legal career. I don't see anything in it to suggest that she's a brilliant legal mind (something I DO think should be a prerequisite for USSC service), but no doubt we'll find out more over time.

One interesting tidbit in her bio is her abrupt, unexplained resignation from the Texas Lottery Commission in 2000. There may be something there (though I'm sure if it were anything awful she wouldn't have been selected). Also, one wonders whether the Christian conservatives will embrace a 60-year-old woman who's never been married . . .

 

[umbrella39]

I edited my post Don because it made no sense, early am no coffee yet ramblings.

Edit: A better analogy would be a neurosurgeon being asked to perform heart surgery. While yes, they are somewhat qualified as they are both surgeons, I would prefer one with experience in that particular arena. From what I have heard so far this morning, she has little if any experience in constitutional law. I am sure the right will do that research and let us know what, if any, her qualifications are regarding that.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
This is just more evidence of Bush's idiocy. Why would you pick someone without any judicial experience for the most important court in the United States? Perhaps she'd be a great nominee for a Federal District Court; no problem. But the U.S. Supreme Court? U.S. Supreme Court nominees should be judges who have years of experience having considered the nuances of U.S. Constitutional law, preferably judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals (the courts that are directly below the Supreme court) or judges from state supreme courts. A federal district court judge wouldn't be so awful, nor would an accomplished constitutional law scholar (law school professor specializing in constitutional law).

But choosing an attorney with zero judicial experience who hasn't really specialized in constutional law? It's almost like a deriliction of duty on Bush's part.

His choice of nominee is an insult to every judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and also to ever federal district judge. I hope the Senate shoots her down.

We live in a barrario world these days.. You fire generals with years experiance and hire prinecton professors to tell you about war. You Hire a horse trainer to run our disaster relief efforts. A vetriarian to runs womens health at FDA .. Hire lobbiests as regualtors..etc etc etc

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: umbrella39

I have to agree and I had no problem with Roberts. This is like an orderly being nominated to chief of staff in a hospital. But like Don said, this is not the first time, nor will it be the last.

Your analogy is inapt IMO. I don't personally think judicial experience should be a prerequisite for a SC nomination, though it's helpful, particularly in this era of anti-judicial sentiment by uninformed Republicans. Ms. Miers has an impressive legal career. I don't see anything in it to suggest that she's a brilliant legal mind (something I DO think should be a prerequisite for USSC service), but no doubt we'll find out more over time.

One interesting tidbit in her bio is her abrupt, unexplained resignation from the Texas Lottery Commission in 2000. There may be something there (though I'm sure if it were anything awful she wouldn't have been selected). Also, one wonders whether the Christian conservatives will embrace a 60-year-old woman who's never been married . . .

My guess she went to work for Bush admin after winning in 2000.

 

[techs]

The precedent set by Roberts comes home to roost. By allowing Roberts to decide what questions he would and would not answer, we now have a Supreme Court candidate with no record who will tell us only what she wants.
And it is likely the Republicans will demand her confirmation anyway.
Isn't it screwey to appoint someone for life based on no record?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: slyedog
she will have a confirmation hearing like anyone else. but to condemm her just because Bush picked her is ignorant. but the whacko's have begun.

The whackos? You mean the majority of Americans who disapprove of this president? Those whackos?

She was the president's personal lawyer at one point. We've all seen this guy in action for the last 5 years or so. His decisions leave MUCH to be desired.

And, what's this? She worked for Locke Liddell & Sapp that has links to the indicted TRMPAC?
http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1781

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6652757/site/newsweek


This is just more of the Bush family cronyism at action.

Here's more:



The Rise of the Machine

How a small group of politicians and corporations bought themselves a legislature
http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleFileName=030829_f1.htm

A year after the release of the scorecard, with the election less than a month away, Baxter sent out mail pieces in the district attacking Kitchen?s record on state spending. Kitchen, in order to counter what she describes as misleading information, left recorded phone messages for voters. The very next day, a TAB phone bank also left messages directing voters to call it to learn "the truth about Ann Kitchen?s spending [and] taxes." On another occasion, Baxter sent a positive mailing outlining his stance on education. By the next day, voters received a mailer from the TAB attacking Kitchen?s position on education.

Kitchen believes these two incidents demonstrate that the TAB at some level coordinated its advocacy campaign with Baxter, which would be illegal. "On the face of it, that all required coordination of message and timing," she says.

[...]

These two incidents were both submitted by Kitchen to the grand jury in the form of an affidavit. The former representative is also a party to one of three civil suits against the TAB and TRM for their conduct during the election. It?s litigation, Andy Taylor, the TAB?s lawyer never misses a chance to characterize as "losing-candidate lawsuits."

Taylor is a prime example of the incestuous nature of the TAB/TRM effort. It extends to family members of those involved and goes all the way to the White House through Karl Rove. In 2001, Taylor worked for then-Attorney General and Rove protege John Cornyn in the Republican redistricting effort. He then left to join the law firm of Locke Liddell and Sapp that represents Texans for Lawsuit Reform. Soon after, Cornyn hired Taylor to do the same redistricting work he did as a state employee, this time paying Locke Liddell and Sapp $804,478. Now Taylor is the chief lawyer and spokesman for the TAB. He also represents TRM in the civil lawsuits. This summer, Taylor is again the state?s outside counsel on congressional redistricting.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: techs
The precedent set by Roberts comes home to roost. By allowing Roberts to decide what questions he would and would not answer, we now have a Supremem Court candidate with no record who will tell us only what she wants.
And it is likely the Republicans will demand her confirmation anyway.
Isn't it screwey to appoint someone for life based on no record?

I am a liberal, but thought Justice Roberts was perfectly appropriate in the confirmation hearings. I guess it's because I'm a lawyer, but it makes perfect sense to me that a nominee would refuse to prejudge cases during the confirmation process. It's frankly not appropriate, IMO, for a judge to start announcing how he would decide cases when he has no real-world facts or procedural history to rely on.