Brewtown Politico

Carrying a little stick and speaking loudly in Milwaukee


Miers isn't a judge. So what?

I'm in agreement with Stacie that Harriet Miers' lack of experience as a judge doesn't automatically disqualify her as a nominee to the Supreme Court.

In fact, the late Earl Warren had no experience as a judge prior to being appointed to chief justice by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953. Before that, Warren had served as governor of California, and Attorney General. He also ran for Vice President as Thomas Dewey's running mate in 1948 against President Harry Truman.

Of course, this probably won't provide much comfort to disgruntled conservatives upset about the nomination of Miers. Warren, a Republican, became known as a liberal judge who presided over landmark cases like Brown vs. Board of Education which outlawed segregation in public schools.


At 10/04/2005 09:22:00 AM, Anonymous Ben said...

If I didn't have the political clout anymore for a big nomination fight but wanted a conservative justice, I'd nominate a nobody whom only I knew, one who sang my praises but had no judicial record, and then ask a couple conservatives to scream that she wasn't right enough, forcing her public image back to the middle.

I think the left needs to not embrace her until we hear more. I'd be worried of a political bait-and-trap.

And I think SCOTUS is the only bench you can sit on without even being an attorney.

Not including a park bench.

At 10/04/2005 08:14:00 PM, Blogger True Blue said...

A couple of interesting bits. What would the right wingers say if Clinton had nominated his personal lawyer? I suspect Fox News would have had round the clock coverage blasting him calling for the Repuglicans to block the nomination.

'Cronyism' kills as we learned with '"Brownie" you are doing a heck of a job' heading up FEMA. This certainly is cronyism, unless she is the lunatic neoconservative that she very well may be.

I don't know what to make of this one. I fear that we are all being duped. Rogers wife is a pro-life extremist, which makes him likely to be in the same camp. Meir's lack of a public record scares me as well. I would not be surprised if both of them are stealth nominees which will overturn Roe v. Wade as soon as they have the chance.

At 10/04/2005 09:04:00 PM, Blogger Scott said...

Considering the skepticism her nomination is getting from both conservatives and liberals, I would expect these hearings to receive much more attention than the Roberts hearings and rightfully so.

The fact that Bush nominated someone close to him isn't all the surprising when he has a track record of buying loyalty this way to those surrounding him.

I'll reserve my judgment until the hearings on whether or not she's good enough for the high court.

At 10/08/2005 04:56:00 AM, Blogger Quietman said...

The question may not be " is she good enough for the court?", the question is "is she the best person available?". The answer is of course, " not even close." Without any insight into her judicial philosophy, we are to "trust her". Trust her to do what? To rely heavily on her clerks, as Souter did when it became clear he was overwhelmed by the aspects of the job? To overturn Roe v Wade? Gay marriage? To recuse herself from any discussion on challenges to the Patriot Act? If she's good enough for the Supreme Court, than so are all of us. A frightening thought.


Post a Comment

<< Home