Harrier Miers for Supreme Court -- Yes or No

[John-in-KC 311]

Here's my take:

 

She's a litigator. She probably knows more of the commercial and contract law issues that rise to the Supreme Courth than any five law school instructors in the country.

 

She was successful in a time when the barriers were steel rather than glass.

 

Both sides seem to dislike her.

 

I like what both Kahuna and Jerry Schlienig said.

 

So... two weeks ago I emailed both my Senator-critters, recommending they confirm Miss Miers.

[Kahuna 172]

Both sides seem to dislike her.

 

You know, they say the best bargain or settlement is usually the one that leaves both sides dissatisfied. Maybe the same applies here.

[Torveaux 10]

I think what we need are more Justices like Roberts. If you watched his confirmation testimony it was clear that he values the law first and is able to filter out his personal views when sitting on the bench.

 

Miers may be like Rehnquist in that she has never been a judge, but she is very unlike Rehnquist as she is not exactly a scholar. Rehnquist graduated #1 in his class at Stanford. Miers went to SMU, I could find no mention of where she was in her class, which generally means she was not near the top.

 

I think that unlike the observations of some, she appears to be pro-life and is not necessarily a Constitutionalist. If your only point of interest is in Roe v Wade, then I think she would be a positive choice for the pro-life crowd and a negative one for the pro-death crowd. The problem is that there is a great deal more to the law than that one poorly written decision. I think Bush is a nice guy, but like his father before him he can be easily mislead by people with more nefarious objectives.

 

There are many more qualified candidates out there, both male and female. Both Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen are better qualified and are, like Roberts, defenders of the Constitution, rather than a particular ideology. Owen was #1 in her class at Baylor Law and both have extensive judicial experience.

 

It is not that Miers is a bad person or anything, it is that she is not the best candidate available and for the Supreme Court it is incumbent upon the President and the Senate to get the best Justices they can find.

 

As for comparisons to JFK appointing his brother as AG, at least AG is a temporary position.

[Hunt 11]

Just a bit about Semper's list of other Supreme Court justices who didn't have judicial experience. First of all, even if some of the prior nominees were equally unqualified, I don't think that's much of an argument.

However, when you look at that list, you see many giants of the legal profession, people who were leading scholars and national leaders, people who had major accomplishments. While some of them didn't have judicial experience, most of them had other experience that supported their placement on the court. For example, Fortas, while definitely a crony, was a former Yale law professor, a founder of a major law firm, and a well-known Supreme Court practitioner.

Miers doesn't even seem to be a very experienced courtroom litigator. As a commercial lawyer, most likely very few of her cases ever made it into court at all.

[firstpusk 10]

Harriet Miers is the best choice the president could make for a lifetime appointment to the highest court. This is from the Washington Post.

 

"Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers's response to the committee's request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to 'the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause' as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.

 

'There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause,' said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago."

 

Yes, she has a fine legal mind, indeed. Bush should apologize to the country for this selection. We should apologize to the world for ours.

[Hunt 11]

I'd just add that I don't even think it's necessarily a big deal that she doesn't have a great deal of constitutional law experience. It might make a lot of sense to have a justice who really understood commercial law issues well. However, if that's what you wanted, why not somebody who is really a leader in that area? Someone who has written extensively about it, or who is one of the people revising the Uniform Commercial Code, or something like that?

If you think it's the liberals who are after Miers, take a look at George Will's column for today.

[packsaddle 753]

Hunt, saw it. And also:

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3143922

interesting.

[acco40 95]

Conservatives sunk her bid and Democrats just hung back and watched Bush's nomination self-destruct.

 

My prediction - Bush's next nominee will be way to the right of Harriet Meirs further dividing our country along the political spectrum.

[SemperParatus 1]

Hope the next nominee will be found Slouching Toward Gomorrah...(This message has been edited by SemperParatus)

[Hunt 11]

"My prediction - Bush's next nominee will be way to the right of Harriet Meirs further dividing our country along the political spectrum."

 

I dunno--Bush values loyalty. If he blames the far right for torpedoing Miers, he may get revenge on them by nominating some more moderate judge. Plus, this fiasco, as well as Bush's declining approval numbers, will embolden the Democrats to fight a more conservative nominee. What Bush needs is a female Roberts.

[Eamonn 61]

Harriet Miers?

Looks like the White House and George W. Are starting to lose it.

No - Change that they have lost it!!

Eamonn.

[acco40 95]

Hunt - you may be much more politically astute than I am. You may be correct, plus Bush doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected so he may make his choice less along party lines. If he really wanted to throw a curve ball, he could nominate either Jeb or to really really throw a curve, Al Gore!

 

"Hispanic male" give any clues?

[Hunt 11]

It seems to me Bush can't nominate Alberto Gonzalez now, because his opponents will just request the same kind of documents Bush refused to release for Miers.

 

Look at this blurb from nbcnews.com:

 

Maureen Mahoney, 50

Often described as the female version of Chief Justice John Roberts, Mahoney, a lawyer in private practice, clerked for the late Justice William Rehnquist, served as deputy solicitor general under Kenneth Starr and has argued cases before the Supreme Court. Mahoney might upset conservatives with one of her major court wins, the landmark University of Michigan Law School case defending affirmative action.

 

This is the kind of nominee I expect--not somebody who has already been filibustered.

[packsaddle 753]

She thought George Bush was one of the most brilliant men she had ever met. So much for her judgement ability!

As Paul Harvey would say, 'Page Two'.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

They were posturing to take the spot light from their VP before he is taken off in handcuffs for lying. It had nothing to do with getting a new SC Justice.