This is topic President Bush has chosen White House counsel Harriet Miers for Supreme Court in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
Isn't giving the Supreme Court position to a friend from Texas who has never been a judge before a bit like hiring a FEMA director who doesn't have crisis management experience?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not really. There have been many, many, many successful SCOTUS justices who have never been judges before.
That said, I'm reserving judgment on her until I know more. But the mere lack of judicial experience is not disqualifying.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Stealth candidates have never been good for Republicans in the past. So I’m a bit nervous but hopeful. I realize that 60 isn’t old, but I would have liked to have someone a bit younger too. I was really hoping for Brown.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Not really. There have been many, many, many successful SCOTUS justices who have never been judges before.
Glad to hear that Dag. I've been meaning to ask you exactly that all morning, but I've kept forgetting.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:Not really. There have been many, many, many successful SCOTUS justices who have never been judges before.
...such as...?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Stealth candidates have never been good for Republicans in the past.
See, and here I was hoping she'd be good for the SCOTUS, or better yet, for the country. How narrow-minded of me.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
..wow, Earl Warren.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: You don't have to go back far to find a justice who was never a judge _ William H. Rehnquist never served on the bench, for instance. The president also mentioned Byron White
[ October 03, 2005, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:...such as...?
Earl Warren John Marshall Louis Brandeis (I think). John Marshall Harlan Felix Frankfurter William O. Douglas Robert H. Jackson Byron White
[ October 03, 2005, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
According to the NewYorkTimes and ChicagoTribune article preceding Roberts confirmation
quote:only 48 of the 108 people who have served on the Supreme Court were previously sitting judges. Out of the other 60 justices, 25 were practicing lawyers, 9 were attorneys general or deputy attorneys general, 7 held other cabinet positions, 6 were senators, 2 were members of the House of Representatives, 3 were governors, 2 were solicitors general and 2 were law professors.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And one was President. How'd they miss that?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
We've had this conversation a zillion times on this forum, guys, just in the last couple of months. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Probably cuz nobody would want to admit that the crook was either a President or a Justice.
[ October 03, 2005, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've got to get an ignore button. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Sorry, the straight line was too hard to resist Besides, Taft had sat on the federal 6thCircuitCourt.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Missed that when reading the bio.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
doesn't take much does it
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Not really
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
It could have been pity money.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I've got to get an ignore button. [Roll Eyes]
Wouldn't that be nice...
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Or is it like posting a animal vet to the post overseeing women's health issues?
I will reserve judgement for a bit but the cronyism is starting to stink up the administration enough that even some Republicans are starting to get a whiff (finally). George's personal lawyer and White House counsel. Humph. Has Bush EVER looked farther than the end of his nose for people to nominate? (okay, yes I am sure he has but really...not that often...and he has a knack of putting people into positions they barely qualify for, if at all).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
For all the complaining I see about this, I've yet to see one bit of analysis about whether or not she's qualified.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Dag do you have any thoughts? I mean, I've never heard of her. Has she argued in front of SCOTUS before? Does she have a background in studying constitutional law? Those are some of the questions I would have about qualifications.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I haven't had time to do any real research yet, but I intend to do some more this evening or tomorrow evening.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
She’s the White House council. Sure she’s qualified. I just hope President Bush knows something about her that the rest of us don’t.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Such as what's in that video of Miers at her law school graduation party? Wow! I didn't even know that people could do that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
She's been a lawyer for X number of years.
Certain groups will say that she's eminently qualified.
Other people will praise her character
Those will be her qualifications.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Ok, this sounds a little better.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
For those who claimed fighting abortion was the big reason they voted for Bush, who argued it was worth accepting all his questionable neoconservative foreign policy and restrictions of civil liberty in order to get more socially conservative judges in for life, I have to wonder if these nominations might make one think twice about that. Neither Roberts nor Miers look like the sort of conservative hardliner that would shift the court dramatically or vote to overrule Roe v. Wade.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:She’s the White House council.
This does NOT make her qualified. Nor does it make her unqualified. It's one piece of a career that needs to be examined at length.
quote:For those who claimed fighting abortion was the big reason they voted for Bush
Nice word choice there. How about "For those who had fighting abortion as a big reason for voting for Bush"?
quote:I have to wonder if these nominations might make one think twice about that.
We'll see, won't we.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’m hopeful still. Plus I heard on the radio that she is an evangelical Christian and a biblical literalist.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I’m hopeful still. Plus I heard on the radio that she is an evangelical Christian and a biblical literalist.
Neither should make you either happy or unhappy about her being a judge.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
To me it does. Says that she’ll have a moral authority and not try to legislate from the bench. The law will rule as it’s supposed to, not as Bryer would have it where doing what feels right is how you rule. I’m not saying that she’ll use her faith to make decisions, I’m saying that her faith gives her a foundation that can be trusted and where she takes the bible literally she’ll also take the constitution literally.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Evangelical Christian=law will rule as it's supposed to?
I don't know about that.
-pH
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: To me it does. Says that she’ll have a moral authority and not try to legislate from the bench. The law will rule as it’s supposed to, not as Bryer would have it where doing what feels right is how you rule. I’m not saying that she’ll use her faith to make decisions, I’m saying that her faith gives her a foundation that can be trusted and where she takes the bible literally she’ll also take the constitution literally.
Do you often extrapolate a person's entire character, political philosophy, and future actions from a couple of catch-phrases?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Hrm. So your argument then, is that evangelical christians and biblical literalists have more moral authority then any other americans?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To me it does. Says that she’ll have a moral authority and not try to legislate from the bench. The law will rule as it’s supposed to, not as Bryer would have it where doing what feels right is how you rule. I’m not saying that she’ll use her faith to make decisions, I’m saying that her faith gives her a foundation that can be trusted and where she takes the bible literally she’ll also take the constitution literally.
There are many people who interpret the Bible literally who think evolution should be taught in school. There are many who think it shouldn't be taught in school. There are many who oppose 10 commandment monuments in courthouses.
That information alone does not tell you her interpretational philosophy.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you often extrapolate a person's entire character, political philosophy, and future actions from a couple of catch-phrases?
Certainly...we all do, all the time.
No one has the time to do real research on all of this... which is why we have the necessary evil of a representative government.
That having been said, Jay, I've seen some horrific excuses for people that are biblical literalists and some amazingly trustworthy ones who aren't remotely Christian. I don't think that's a good predictor.
As C. S. Lewis said, the only thing we can assume about Christianity's affect on people (assuming Christianity is true) is that they are better people with it than they would be without it. It says nothing about how good or bad they may actually *be*.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"As C. S. Lewis said, the only thing we can assume about Christianity's affect on people (assuming Christianity is true) is that they are better people with it than they would be without it."
Hrm. I'm not even sure that is logically correct.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Paul, are you seriously going to derail this discussion to argue with me (when I'm taking your side, no less) that a direct impartation of divine grace on a scale that would "save a person from their own sin" wouldn't make someone a better behaved person?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yes of course there are going to be exceptions, but I feel more comfortable taking a chance on a literalist then on a feel good type person.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, are you seriously going to derail this discussion to argue with me"
I'll derail any discussion to argue a point I find interesting
That said, I hadn't considered the "grace" angle when making my post. You probably have a point.
"Yes of course there are going to be exceptions, but I feel more comfortable taking a chance on a literalist then on a feel good type person."
Why? Because their politics are more in line with yours? Or because they are more likely to live good lives? If your previous post you implied the latter, but I don't think you can make an objective case for that point.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Yes of course there are going to be exceptions, but I feel more comfortable taking a chance on a literalist then on a feel good type person.
emphasis mine.
Not trying to beat you down, Jay, honest. I just found the phrasing ironically humorous.
Edit: Well, it wasn't *my* point, Paul. That's the double-edged thing about appeals to authority-- you don;t take blame for them, but neither can you really take credit
[ October 03, 2005, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"that she is an evangelical Christian and a biblical literalist...Says that she’ll have a moral authority..."
Are you saying, Jay, that she thinks she's as smart as God?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Yes of course there are going to be exceptions, but I feel more comfortable taking a chance on a literalist then on a feel good type person.
Because as we know those are the only two kinds of people, and everything about them can be defined by those descriptions. Well, I feel better.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:a feel good type person
How is this the opposite of biblical literalist, again? I missed it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Jay
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To me it does. Says that she’ll have a moral authority and not try to legislate from the bench. The law will rule as it’s supposed to, not as Bryer would have it where doing what feels right is how you rule. I’m not saying that she’ll use her faith to make decisions, I’m saying that her faith gives her a foundation that can be trusted and where she takes the bible literally she’ll also take the constitution literally.
I submit that there is a huge difference between taking the bible literally and taking the constitution literally.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I think the most interesting aspect of this nomination is that it was recommended by Harry Reid."
This doesn't appear to be a confirmed fact. It seems to be an interpretation of Reid's recommending that the white house not necessarily look to someone with previous judicial experience, combined with his statement that so far, her record looks good to him.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
The phrase "biblical literalist" puts Phelps and the WBC into my mind, personally.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
WBC?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
The Westboro Baptist Church.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Biblical Literalist?
Like when Jesus tells us to pluck our eyes out?
Is she that F-ing Literal? Or is she a liberal Literal?
People who interpret EVERY word of the Bible as Literal, are crazy.
Example, does she really think a Great Red Dragon will rise out of the Sea???
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I admit that I'm not pleased with Bush nominating someone so close to him. After the FEMA fiasco with Brown, we have to ask if his other candidates are actually qualified for the job, or just qualified because Bush likes them. I hope and expect that he treats the Supreme Court as more than a plum job for his friends. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but nominating what appears to be one of his own lawyers makes me very nervous. And not just about her qualifications either--it matters very much to me that the Supreme Court remain independent from the White House. Can Miers stay impartial in regards to a man whom she has worked with closely?
I have a question for Biblical literalists: Do you take Revelation literally? Can there be a literal meaning (letters to specific churches in specific cities) with another, more metaphorical meaning on top (those same letters representing different stages in church history, the interpretation taught at the private Christian school I attended)? Or is the literal meaning the only one?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
PG-- heard a rumor yesterday that Reid suggested Miers. :shrug:
quote:Can there be a literal meaning (letters to specific churches in specific cities) with another, more metaphorical meaning on top (those same letters representing different stages in church history, the interpretation taught at the private Christian school I attended)? Or is the literal meaning the only one?
Who knows? My understanding is that the Apocalypse of St. John is to be taken both literally and metaphorically. Like much of the Bible.
That way, it's easier for believers to craft meaning. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I have a question for Biblical literalists: Do you take Revelation literally? Can there be a literal meaning (letters to specific churches in specific cities) with another, more metaphorical meaning on top (those same letters representing different stages in church history, the interpretation taught at the private Christian school I attended)? Or is the literal meaning the only one?
I believe Revelation had meaning for the early church to which it was written and it still has meaning for us today. I think the letters were meant to be read and understood by the churches they were addressed to and they also apply to all Christians today.
I do not believe in literal fulfillment of everything, like Thor said if you take every single verse in the Bible literally I think you are going too far. Apocalyptic imagery is just that - imagery - and while there is certainly meaning there, I don't believe there will be literal horses of the Apocalypse, for example. I think the horses are representative and symbolic instead.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
But. . . I wanna ride the pony!
Had to be said.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Pleae, people. We all know that there's only one right way to interpret the law. Everyone knows exactly what "due process" means. Everyone knows what "cruel and unusual punishment" is. There's no ambiguity anywhere in the constitution or the larger body of law, and anyone who says otherwise is an anarchistic, radical liberal.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Actually, it does bother me that she headed the Texas Lottery. Encouraging folks to gamble doesn't seem to be an ethical way to make a living when one knows that lotteries disproportionately attract poorer folk. And that the legalized-lottery payout is far lower than what the (obsoleted by the state lotteries) illegal numbers game operators would have dared.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've seen several references to there being no legal articles written by Miers from which to discover her opinions, and precious few other avenues besides interview, which I consider so staged as to be near-meaningless. If this turns out to be true, I will oppose her being appointed to the Supreme Court, as her qualifications are hidden.
People who have come up through non-legal routes are a different thing. They have (as far as I know, to a man/woman) been very public figures, and there was much public fodder for the evaluation of their thoughtfulness and general legal philosophy (for instance, someone who generally rejects the rule of human law should not be a SCJ).
But the source of Miers' qualifications can only really be in her legal experience, and if the concrete markers of that experience are either to sparse to evaluate her through, or if most of them are hidden behind demands of privilege from the Bush administration (since her highest experience has been as their counsel), even if they're shown to some or all of Congress, I do not see how she can be appointed to the highest court.
I do not see how anyone could be appointed to the highest court without the public having access to that documentation which shows him or her qualified.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Hmmm.
I'm reading what I can on her. We grew up around the same stomping grounds, her in her late forties, me in my late teens.
I like her. I also liked Roberts.
We will see.
Won't we?
T
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I've seen several references to there being no legal articles written by Miers from which to discover her opinions
Every time someone brought up a legal position of Roberts' that he had written, people claimed we couldn't draw any conclusions from it since the stuff was written while he was an attorney for other people. I imagine the same thing would apply with Miers.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
What's interesting about this whole debate going on is that it may be one of the first times that a politician has been attacked by his own base for seemingly fulfilling a campaign promise. Is Bush the only one that didn't think promising a strict constructionalist and moderate who didn't need to pass any litmus test was secret code for "hard-core conservative who we can prove would certainly vote conservatively on Roe v. Wade and other big social conservative issues"?
And I wish the media, parties, and political activism groups would at least pretend that the role of Supreme Court Justice is still to interpret the law, rather than impose personal ideology on it. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
SS: perhaps her opinions is the wrong word. The patterns of her thought.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
*bump*
(Very curious to hear from Dagonee!)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sorry - I've had no time to do more research. Some possibilities:
1.) Bush has had detailed talks with her, knows what her views are, and is satisfied she won't change them.
2.) Bush is simply going with the loyalty thing - indulging the same instinct that purportedly made him favor Gonzales, but is picking a candidate with very little record that conservatives can point to.
3.) Bush expects to provoke a filibuster, which will free him to appoint anyone he likes with less backlash. I'm not sure there would be less backlash, but some people seem to think so.
4.) Bush is simply looking to get through this without major battles. Both sides seem kind of perplexed right now and may not be able to muster real opposition. Lukewarm support may be preferable to Bush right now.
If Miers votes in a way that offends the conservative base before the 2006 elections, it could seriously hurt the Republicans. I think Bush knows this (Rove certainly does). I'm not sure Bush really cares, though (Rove certainly does).
in short, I have nothing solid. The primary objections I've heard have not been well-supported, but I haven't seen a positive case for why she should be a SCOTUS justice.
If I had to guess her leanings, based on what I've read third or fourth hand, I'd guess the following:
1.) Deference toward executive power. 2.) Favors Rhenquist/O'Connor type restrictions on commerce clause. 3.) Suspicious of expansions to substantive due process (including privacy). 4.) No guess on changes to existing precedent regarding substantive due process rights. 5.) Fairly textualist in statutory interpretation, with more willingness to seek to find legislators' intent than a Scalia or Easterbrook. However, this will be highly results oriented, mostly in a pro-business stance. 6.) Highly results oriented in matters of constitutional interpretation. 7.) Pro-DOMA. 8.) No firm opinions yet on 4th and 5th amendment, because I doubt she's thought much about it.
All this is HIGHLY speculative, based more on intuition than anything tangible. Basically it's a guess, and I won't be surprised if I'm wrong.
I care far more about the constitutional interpretive methods than the statutory. Bad SCOTUS statutory intepretations can be fixed by Congress; bad constitutional interpretation can't.
The only article I found by her was on unlicensed practice of law when traveling out of state to take depositions.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:3.) Bush expects to provoke a filibuster, which will free him to appoint anyone he likes with less backlash. I'm not sure there would be less backlash, but some people seem to think so.
This seems far-fetched. There are so many ways a tactic like that could backfire, I don't think this administration would try it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think many of these are far-fetched. I was just listing possible reasons for the choice.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Looking at preliminaries, this is a choice the dems might NOT have to fillibuster in order for it to go down in flames. It seems some republican senators don't like the choice (brownback for eg)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Going with the far-fetched notion, Bush may have chosen a candidate who'll be defeated but be a good martyr, so he can push through a candidate with more legal experience but extremely controversial views.
That's also pretty far-fetched, though.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm not sure its far-fetched, fugu. Bush seems to have found a candidate that pisses off a good number of republicans... and his approval rating is so low (and dropping) that he won't be able to bludgeon anyone into voting for her.
The choice reeks of cronyism, and after Michael Brown, the american public is being very wary of cronyism right now, so expect pressure on senators from their constituents to find out whether she has any qualifications other then being a bush buddy. There's also a strong apparent element of her being a nominee who will increase the power of the executive. Remember the questioning of roberts? A LOT of senators (including republicans) were concerned that he didn't give enough deference to the legislature. What will senators do with a candidate who might further weaken the legislature to benefit the executive?
We'll see what happens. But the conservatives might not fall into line for this candidate... they've already stepped out of line, so now Bush might need to make a positive case for her as SC justice. And that will be very very hard to do, since she has no record.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
What do you think? I normally don't read the woman but I find myself nodding my head this time.
AJ
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think she has had some serious plastic surgery on that nose.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wow. First time I've read her stuff. I agree on the wanting someone smart and educated (although, why , for heaven's sake wouldn't you want someone smart and educated for other things!) part, but it was buried in so much general hatefulness that I feel like I need a bath.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)