I was rooting for her. My feeling is that I would rather have someone without experience- someone who has not proven themselves to be a right wing nut judge (Owens, Alito, etc) and has only proven herself to be a nut. I do not know that she has even done that. All she has proven is that she has been his lawyer. On the one hand she went to SMU law school so, odds are, we're not talking about one of the great legal minds of our time. (Not trying to sound snotty here, I went to UH Law myself, which also is not Stanford). On the other hand she once refered to W Bush as one the smartest people she ever met or something, so she might be crazy. Or she may have just been buttering up her boss. The key words for her are that she Might be crazy. She Might shift the court even farther to the right. It could have been a whole lot worse. I'll take a question mark (Souter) over a guarantee (Thomas) any day of the week.
skippy's not a strict constructionist, i hear. i'm underwhelemed. if he wanted to appoint a conservative woman to the court, there were far better choices. i fear she was appointed precisely because she has no record, and thus should be easier to confirm. the inevitable end result of our completely ****ed up judicial nomination process. oh, well, you get what you pay for i guess.
A look at Harriet Miers' campaign contribution (note the trend!): BUSH, GEORGE W (R) President BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC $2,000 primary 10/08/03 STENBERG, DONALD B (R) Senate - NE GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND $500 primary 07/13/00 NEWTON, JONATHAN (R) House (TX 04) JON NEWTON FOR CONGRESS $1,000 general 06/01/00 LOCKE LIDDELL & SAPP LLP PAC $415 primary 05/17/00 BUSH, GEORGE W (R) President BUSH-CHENEY 2000 COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE INC. $1,000 general 04/28/00 HUTCHISON, KAY BAILEY (R) Senate - TX KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON FOR SENATE COMMITTEE $1,000 general 06/03/99 HUTCHISON, KAY BAILEY (R) Senate - TX KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON FOR SENATE COMMITTEE $1,000 primary 05/11/99 BUSH, GEORGE W (R) President BUSH FOR PRESIDENT INC. $1,000 primary 03/10/99 HUTCHISON, KAY BAILEY (R) Senate - TX KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON FOR SENATE COMMITTEE $1,000 primary 04/23/97 FRIENDS OF PHIL GRAMM PAC (R) $1,000 general 05/07/96 SESSIONS, PETE (R) House (TX 32) PETE SESSIONS FOR CONGRESS $500 02/24/95 GRAMM, WILLIAM PHILLIP (R) President PHIL GRAMM FOR PRESIDENT, INC. $1,000 primary 02/21/95 SESSIONS, PETE (R) House (TX 32) PETE SESSIONS FOR CONGRESS $500 general 09/23/94 LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $225 primary 01/08/90 DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (D) $1,000 primary 11/03/88 LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $630 primary 02/16/88 GORE, AL (D) President ALBERT GORE JR FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE INC $1,000 primary 02/16/88 BENTSEN, LLOYD SENATOR (D) Senate - DC SENATOR LLOYD BENTSEN ELECTION COMMITTEE $1,000 primary 03/30/87 http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php
Mr. Bush nominates a woman who was once his personal attorney to the Supreme Court the day after ABC intimates that Bush was involved in discussions about the outing of a CIA operative for political retribution. hummmm...... preemptive strike?
She should be. This is the mosty ludicrous example of cronyism that I have ever seen. Never been a judge?! Qualifications The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court. However, Presidents normally nominate individuals who have prior legal experience. Typically, most nominees have previous judicial experience, either at the federal or state level. Several nominees have formerly served on federal Courts of Appeals, especially the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Another source of Supreme Court nominees is the federal executive branch—in particular, the Department of Justice. Other potential nominees include members of Congress and academics. On the current Supreme Court, seven Justices previously served on federal courts (including three on the D.C. Circuit); two served on state courts; three were former law school professors; and three held full time positions in the federal executive branch. Nominees to the Supreme Court, as well as to lower federal courts, are evaluated by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary. The panel is composed of fifteen federal judges (but not Supreme Court Justices), including at least one from each federal judicial circuit. The body assesses the nominee "solely to professional qualifications: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament," and offers a rating of "well qualified," "qualified," or "not qualified." The opinions of the committee bind neither the President nor the Senate; however, they are generally taken into account. Well hopefully the ABA will see that this nominee is NOT qualified and will advise as such.
Perhaps this woman is a sacrificial lamb, setting up an intense battle in the Senate judiciary comm. on how unqualified she is. Her confirmation will be disapproved and then Bush will nominate someone in his cabinet that has been a judge, namely Alberto Gonzales, former Justice on the Texas Supreme Court.
Born: 1945 in Dallas Family: Single, no children If Karl Rove was a Democrat, imagine the tom foolery that would pursue.
W has never made his way in the world without complete reliance on his last name. Experience never won the day for him. Thus, W appears not to value experience when it comes to his appointments. I can see W thinking that his lack of ecxperience did not hinder him in his ability to be President, so why should he use experience as a criteria for any of his appointments.
Miers has a tough act to follow in Roberts. She could come off looking like a dummy compared to his incredible legal mind. But since she is a woman, the Dems may go a little easy on her. Even if Reid suggested her to Bush, he could still change his mind. Remember, Biden publicly said if Bush nominated Bork, he couldn't oppose him. The rest is history.
Really? I think the trend is pretty obvious - Harriet Miers has been consistently pro Republican candidates since the early '90.
