Harrient Miers - Pro or Con

[DisDuck]

With all the 'politicians' on this board I thought by now someone would have started a thread on this subject. Since not, I will be the guinea pig.

I do have my opinion and that is she is not qualified and not because of who she is but because she has little constitutional law experience. I don't care what school she went to and I applaud her achievements at a time when few women were anything but 'law' clerks in a man dominated profession.

One of the most critical things that worry me about her appointment is a statement by Bush (I have tried to find it but could not 'google' it properly). It was to the effect that I know how she will vote on issues before the court. To me that means more than just 'I share a philosophy'; it means I know your vote in advance regardless of the the case in front of you. This may be a 'stretch' I admit but for a position on the Supreme Court this should not even come to mind. How can anyone including that 'person/judge' know how a vote will go before hearing the case?


This discussion can also include views on the constitution and is it carved in stone without any adaptation to changing times/society outside of the admendment process.

The floor is opened.

 

[Alicnwondrln]

i dont like her

 

[wvrevy]

Honestly...I have no idea how to feel about her. She is certainly unqualified for the position, based solely upon her resume. That said, I like the fact that she is an independant woman that has made her way very successfully in a very-much male dominated field.

But that lack of qualifications is certainly troubling. The fact that Bush has claimed that she's the most qualified candidate he could find leads me to believe that he simply didn't look very hard. I mean...her most prestigious position to date was as President of the Texas Bar Association, and while that's nice, I'm not sure it qualifies her for lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Particularly when she's never sat on any court at all.

 

[jrydberg]

I like the fact that she has no constitutional law experience. That's one big positive as far as I'm concerned -- the court is already overloaded with career judges. I think it'd be better for the court to have a bit more diversity in background. It doesn't take a genius to understand the U.S. Constitution and the legal principles involved in disputes about it.

What I want to see on the court is someone who has a keen analytical mind and the mindset to ask difficult questions of all sides of an issue. That's where I'm not sure Harriet Miers is right for the job. She seems to have had a rather successful career and all -- but for some reason, she just strikes me as someone who isn't likely to go against popular opinion on anything.

 

[DisDuck]

j... I also like the idea about going outside the box. However, I disagree with your statement "It doesn't take a genius to understand the U.S. Constitution and the legal principles involved in disputes about it." While not necessary to be a genius the constitution is not an easy document to 'interpret'. Just look at all the many interpretations given to sections of the 1st, 2nd and 4th admendments.

I don't believe the constitution is carved in stone and even though I am a Libertarian I dislike the phrase 'strict constructionist'. Because, the writers back 200+ years ago could not have predicted where society would be today. And while the admendment process is the way to go in most instances sometimes that process is too slow. Just like at Plessy followed by Brown cases. If 'we' waited for an admendment how many more years of 'separate but equal' would have ensued?

Where a case is 'straight' forward concerning 'law & constitution' that is one thing. But where it is complicated like Miranda was and Roe then one needs to view the constitution in light of current society. Just take one other example, Birth Control did not exist in 1781 so does that mean by 'strict' there is no right to use it? Connecticut thought so but that was overturned in the 1960's as unconstitutional. Based on what as 'strictly' written there is no right to Birth Control in the constitution. Yet inherent in the 4th admendment on 'search & seizure' I think is the right to control one's own bodily functions. See, my point.

 

[jrydberg]

Actually, I think it's very easy to interpret for anyone of reasonable intelligence. That doesn't mean interpretations won't differ. There isn't a "right" answer to a lot of these issues. But I don't think it takes a legal scholar to understand the legal implications of one side or the other in a constitutional debate.

I can certainly understand the ramifications of Supreme Court cases and the validity of various arguments used in them -- I doubt I'm on the short list of nominees though

 

[mickeyfan2]

I doubt I'm on the short list of nominees though

Should I call the WH and get your name on the list?

 

[snoopy]

Haven't studied up on her extensively, but I know it could be a lot worse.

 

[jrydberg]

Should I call the WH and get your name on the list?

Not sure I'd make the cut. But hey, it can't hurt

 

[Patch'sD]

I am for her. Bush has worked with her for years and know's how she thinks. She will be the 42 Supreme Court Justice out of 110 who did not have any Judicial Experience.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I am not happy with her nomination. There are certainly very qualified people available for this position and Ms. Miers does not seem to stand with those people. Her resume is incredibly light and somehow this nomination just smells more than a little like cronyism. I simply cannot believe that the short-list was so bereft of well-qualified candidates that it came down to her as the top choice.

I could be wrong and she could surprise everyone. I will be following the inquisition, er, Senate hearings with great interest to see what she has to say (or not say).

 

[Galahad]

smells more than a little like cronyism.

So you fear she lacks gravitas?

 

[missypie]

I'm a Democrat (real estate lawyer) in a large Dallas law firm full of conservative Republican litigators. Asking around the firm, I thought everyone would be pleased and proud...especially her fellow SMU grads....WRONG!!! Our trial lawyers - AND ESPECIALLY OUR APPELLATE LAWYERS - are horrified. She has tried very few cases in federal court. The number of federal court appearances she has under her belt are equal to about what a 6 year lawyer would have. The people who run the local bar association and the state bar association and manage large law firms for the most part don't practice much law. I think that she was a fast track litigator in 1984, buth since then, hasn't practiced much.

 

[BostonTigger]

Well, there's nothing in the consitution that says that she has to have had past experience to sit on the Supreme Court. However, I am of the personal belief that someone needs to have some experience on the bench before they are elevated to the S.C. So I'm not for it.

 

[missypie]

Well, there's nothing in the consitution that says that she has to have had past experience to sit on the Supreme Court. However, I am of the personal belief that someone needs to have some experience on the bench before they are elevated to the S.C. So I'm not for it.

I'd be fine with her having no judicial experience if she had had a busy practice arguing federal appeals. She'd be very up on constitutional law, what is and isn't a federal issue, etc.

 

[yeartolate]

I like the fact that she has no constitutional law experience.

I beg to differ....

She has too argued constitutional issues....

How cool is that, she is experienced.

 

[Free4Life11]

I don't really know what to think of her. To be honest, I don't follow the Supreme Court much. Yes they have a lot of power, but most of their rulings don't seem to directly affect me much.

 

[MizBlu]

Harriet Miers.........yea or nay? For me, the question is, what the hell were they thinking?

This nomination is a joke and should be treated like one.

We can endlessly sit and discuss the various aspects of who was/wasn't a judge, who worked where, who wrote what, and at the end of the day, Harriet Miers will still be an unqualified Bush crony.

 

[MizBlu]

I beg to differ....

She has too argued constitutional issues....

How cool is that, she is experienced.

It's amazing how "strictily interprets the Constitution" morphs into "broad and inclusive" when it suits these phonies.

And do we really have to go into that "yup, does it for me" endorsement by Sponge Dob(son)?

Good grief................

 

[Tigger_Magic]

So you fear she lacks gravitas?

I don't fear much. In this case I am concerned about her apparent lack of experience. As the WSJ put it

Because Ms. Miers, now the White House counsel, has so rarely tackled big constitutional issues in her career, the case offers an unusual -- if limited -- glimpse into her legal background.

(See yeartolate's last post for the link to this entire article.)