Great Idea - Nominate Someone Who Isn't a Judge to the Supreme Court!

Remove all ads!

It appears that Bush has nominated Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. She appears to be a conservative, however that is rather difficult to tell for sure, seeing as how Miers has never been a judge!

The Democrats provided a list to Bush of potential nominees that would be hotly contested, but Miers name was not on the list. This probably is because most people would assume that a judge on the Supreme Court would have previous experience being a judge. Miers' name wasn't on the list because she couldn't possibly be on any list of existing judges. If Bush was hoping for a quick approval, I don't understand the selection at all. With no judicial record, it means that no one really knows anything about Miers' judicial philosophy, other than she is likely conservative seeing as how she was nominated by Bush.

 

It's a bad idea to make a top-ranking judge of someone who isn't a judge first of all. Is she a lawyer at all? A prosecutor or a defence lawyer could do, but let's just hope she isn't someone whose only contact with courts has been sitting on the jury. Isn't it just a political move on Dubya's part?

 

Harriet Miers is currently the White House chief counsel, and has been for several years. She has a 20+ year relationship with GWB.

From CNN

 

Hmmm... he does look like a good candidate to me, so long as I can make up my mind after one article. But yes, I see what led to this choice. Round here, you don't need already to be a judge to become a Supreme Court one. All kinds of law practioners can make it, as well as law professors.

 

Damn, I was available.

 

Put a hood on her robes and she'll be the spitting image of Palpatine -- quite an ominous sign....

 

Why did Bush not go right ahead and nominate John Bolton as a supreme court judge?

Well did they not have the same problem with Roberts? No one really knew what he represented and what he was about to do when he was nominated?
Anyway I find the American supreme court system to be undemocratic, but I suppose there has not been large clashes between the supreme court and the senate as of yet (or...?) so as long as the system keeps on working it's good enough. Of course if the balance of the court goes too much to the conservative side (or the liberal for that matter) there might be trouble ahead in the future. Politically aligned courts suck.

 

That one just makes the top internal politics.

 

So did Thomas Jefferson. And many of the SC's early members - just like a few of their brothers now - thought little of democracy. Jefferson was seen by some members as an enemy because he was a friend of democracy. Jefferson, along with Madison, spent much of their time battling the Supreme Court. The process is undemocratic. But it is supposed to represent the Law. Instead, it often reflects political ideology.

Watch out for a phrase, "original intent." It supposedly represents the original intent of the "founding fathers." The first question to ask is, "oh, which ones?" If the answer is the ones at the Convention in 1787, then both Jefferson and Adams were not present. But is the Constituion the only founding document? The Founders left much more than that behind...

Oh, yes. And Bush appointed his own personal lawyer. Cronyism?

[ October 03, 2005, 17:41: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be the only things used to decide the merits of any cases that come before the supreme court. The fact that some of the justices cite rulings from foreign courts is proof that some of them need to be removed.

 

I assume this was directed towards something in my post but I don't really get what. So if you would not mind, I'd like to know which part of the post this comment is directed to.

I'm now assuming it was directed to the "if it works well enough it's ok" comment. Well if we were talking about a Finnish court I would not comment the way I did but we are afterall talking about the American court system. I think the place of the supreme court there is undemocratic as I said but I'm not American and I don't see a great disaster in the court system or a threat. It's just the way things have been done there for quite a while and it's quite unlikely that there will be any changes to it.

 

The notion of "judicial review" regarding the Consitution has an interesting history. I will throw out a question: Did those who drafted the Constitution in 1787, including James Madison, consider that the Supreme Court would have its current powers? Well it depends upon whom you ask. I will begin with Jefferson's comment on the Supreme Court and the notion of judcial review, as he can rightly wear the mantle of a "Founding Father."

And this:

 

Well, so far her biggest point seems to be that she's close to Bush.

From a WaPost profile

Looks like that makes her qualified

a funny coment from the Achenblog :

 

I suspected that you would know that, DMC, and would comment on it. But considering the rhetoric in the media, and the talking heads who rant about judicial review and the Constitution, one would believe, as many seem to, that it was one of the root causes of the Revolution itself. As you point out, it was not considered seriously till some years after the Constitution was framed. But there is a Federalist Paper, #81, I think, which deals directly with some of the issues raised here. But I'm not 100 percent certain of that, since I am going by memory here.

 

Genetically speaking, GB + BB = -GWB

I say we get together and nominate Beren or dmc for the Supreme Court, they've certainly got more law experience than Miss Nobody. Maybe we could divert some funding to SP.

 

I am taking a "wait and see" attitude here. While I wish he would have appointed someone with some judicial experience, the media has pointed out that several (including former Chief Justice Rehnquist) had no judicial experience either.

Apparently one of the reasons her name came up is that Senate Minority Leader Senator Harry Reid listed her as a nominee that he would not oppose when the White House asked Democrats for their suggestions.

 

Heh, no. They did not list her as somebody they would oppose. There is a difference here.

I guess they did not think her name might came up. Also, the fact the she was actually in charge of the search for a nominee might have something to do with it

Be that as it may, the Democratic response so far seems pretty muted. Guess they can live with somebody with no obvious qualifications, but who is not an obvious right-winger either.

 

Her nomination is going to raise an interesting issue: Will the legislative branch be able to review her "paper trail" as this "paper trail" is in fact the documents pertaining to her work with the President?

It is funny, this nomination appears to be pleasing no one. The left is highly suspicious of her proximity to Shrub and the right is suspicious of her political leanings; she donated money to the DNC to help elect Al Gore and she is close to the Bar Association (which apparently the hard-right doesn't like). Couple those two facts together and it seems evangelicals have been screwed not just once, but twice now with SC nominations! It would seem that George II really is just a politician and not the Mesiah in a three-piece.

 

For those of you who seem to think she has "no experience"...

Those both from the article linked above. Did anyone read it...or is she immediately not qualified because GWB appointed her? It can only be cronyism if she's not qualified for the job. What's wrong with Bush appointing someone from his own staff...how better to know the qualities of someone who'll hold an office for life than to have worked with them for 20 years?

I think she's a good choice and look forward to the confirmation hearings.