High Court Nominee Has Never Been a Judge

[Persona]

[COLOR=Orange][I][B]WASHINGTON (AP)[/B] - President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court on Monday, turning to a lawyer who has never been a judge to replace Sandra Day O'Connor and help reshape the nation's judiciary.[/I]

[URL=http://apnews.myway.com//article/20051003/D8D0PEHO4.html]Source[/URL]

I know this may be a bit short handed here, but still I'll post this. Now my question to you is:

Are you for or against the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court and why?

[U]Both views:[/U]

[B]No:[/B] Because she has no experience whatsoever on the bench, we have no way of judging what her judicial temperament would be. What a complete disaster it would be if we end up handing a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land to someone who then develops a raging case of Black Robe Disease - a scenario I think is all too likely. Bad enough when you deal with a brand new judge in Municipal Court whose got BRD - I don't even want to think about the kind of crap a Supreme Court appointee with BRD would pull. IMNSHO a person with no experience of hearing cases or trying to apply the law to a difficult set of facts is qualified to sit in judgment of those judges who have actually faced the difficulties of applying the law to a set of facts. Only an idiot such as that moron in the White House would think that cronyism is a qualification for the high court.

[B]Yes:[/B] Just as an aside, when Earl Warren was appointed chief justice by Ike, he also didn't have judicial experience, and some of the notable decisions that came down during his tenure include Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright (requiring state courts to appoint legal representation to all criminal defendants who can't afford counsel), Hernandez v. Texas (giving Mexican Americans the right to serve on juries).

The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist also didn't have previous judicial experience before being appointed to the Supreme Court.

Also, of the 109 people who have been on the Supreme Court, 41 had no previous judicial experience, about 38%.


[B]Overall:[/B] I go with my no side of view...yes I did both sides of arguments, that way I can reread it both and see more into it...thus making my final decisions. Rehnquist isn't a role model I'd want any justice to follow, politically or otherwise. As chief justice, he frankly sucked, and I'm not just talking political views. And I would remind you that Earl Warren's career on the bench came as a very nasty shock to the man who appointed him - no one who was familiar with his political record would have predicted the decisions his court made. OTOH, unlike Rehnquist, he was a master at forging a concensus as chief justice - one of the reasons so many of the Warren Court decisions have stood the test of time is that it is very difficult for subsequent courts to overturn 9-zip decisions.

It's all fine and well for Shrub & Meirs to claim she's a "strict constructionist", but since she hasn't got the teeniest mite of experience on the bench, even she hasn't got a clue whether she actually will be once she starts hearing cases instead of preparing them. DH sits as arbitrator for the City of Philadelphia, and commented yesterday that his attitude & demeanor are very different when he's acting as a judge than it is when he's representing one of the parties to a dispute. We have no clue what kind of judicial temperament she would have and frankly, with the make-up of the court being what it is, I don't think there's any room for a nominee with no track record.

But in all this is merely my opinion and possiibly others, but either way let's just be civil about posting in here as well. Your opinion is greatly appreciated...no one is wrong or right when stating an opinion (Just remember that).[/COLOR]

[Boba Fett]

[COLOR=DarkGreen]This might be oversimplifying the matter... but the constitution is a four page document. A reasonably intelligent person can figure it out in a day or so, tops.

I'd be more concerned that Bush is picking someone so close to him. Or that Bush is picking a judge at all. His appointments have been lacking quite a bit, to say the least.[/COLOR]

[boothten]

[size=1]I'm against Bush's nomination. Not only she is not qualified for the position but she has no experience what so ever at being a judge.[/size]

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][COLOR=DarkGreen]
I'd be more concerned that Bush is picking someone so close to him. Or that Bush is picking a judge at all. His appointments have been lacking quite a bit, to say the least.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[size=1]Exactly. Picking your "buddies" isn't what is going to help make this country better. I don't think it's a good idea, at all.[/size]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Boba Fett][COLOR=DarkGreen']I'd be more concerned that Bush is picking someone so close to him.[/COLOR][/quote]

[SIZE=1]I would say that Dave has hit the nail on the head with that statement, most people will be less concerned with the nominee's experience as a solicitor and more concerned with her political standing. President Bush would appear to make no secret of his association with the ultra-Conservative wing of politics and most people will be more worried that this is an attempt to further reshape the law in his fashion.[/SIZE]

[Dagger]

[quote name='Gavin][size=1']President Bush would appear to make no secret of his association with the ultra-Conservative wing of politics and most people will be more worried that this is an attempt to further reshape the law in his fashion.[/SIZE][/quote]
Actually, the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party are precisely those who are most grumpy about Bush's choice to nominate Miers. They were ready to wage a big nomination battle on behalf of someone with judicial experience and a solid, proven conservative record. All Miers really has going for her is Bush's word, as others have mentioned, and this hasn't made the right-wingers any happier than the left-wingers.

~Dagger~

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Lan][size=1']I'm against Bush's nomination. Not only she is not qualified for the position but she has no experience what so ever at being a judge.[/size][/quote]
A lawyer is well versed in law (espicially it's loopholes). A judge is used to interpret the laws. As a lawyer, she has seen how laws are to be interpreted. Just my $.02.

On her nomination, I think she would be a good addition as long as she puts her own beliefs aside (i.e. not a Jesus Freak).

[demonboy]

They made some real good fun with this one on Saturday Night Live. Not only in the opening sketch (about croniism featuring GWB, played by Will Forte, Cheney, played by Darrell Hammond, and Meirs, played by Rachel Dratch), but during Weekend Update, they went so far as to bring out their political scape goat character, Tim Calhoun, played by Will Forte, who apparantly was his own lawyer alot of times, and his cases turned out "real bad"; he also said he served in a court, a [i]food court[/i].

[img]http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/ummmliz/images/forte/calhoun.jpg[/img]
Tim announcing his candicacy for Supreme Court.

My opinion is, he has more credentials than Miers. (Did I mention he served in a food court?) Bush claims he "found the best person he could". I have a message for Mr. Bush, "I found someone better... [b][i]Judge Judy!!![/i][/b]"

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=Dagger]Actually, the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party are precisely those who are most grumpy about Bush's choice to nominate Miers. They were ready to wage a big nomination battle on behalf of someone with judicial experience and a solid, proven conservative record. All Miers really has going for her is Bush's word, as others have mentioned, and this hasn't made the right-wingers any happier than the left-wingers.

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]Ah I was unaware he didn't have the blessings of his ultra-Conservative backers, and I can only sympathise with their position given that all the nominee has done is given her word she's the material. It is only expected that the left-wingers wouldn't be pleased with the choice given that for some reason the two political parties in the United States seem to be diametrically opposed to each other's ideals and there are no neutral parties. [/SIZE]