The Official "Pick the Next SCOTUS Nominee" FYM Thread

[Irvine511]

Cause her qualifications don't matter at this point.

what qualifications would those be?

here's what David Frum -- a conservative if ever there was one -- has to say:

I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But nobody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States. And there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or - and more importantly - that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left.
I am not saying that she is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have no [sic] good reason to believe either of these things. In other words, we are being asked by this president to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant.

still, i do like the fact that she's a 60 year old bachelorette ... ahem ...

 

[pax]

It concerns me that she's never been a judge. And she doesn't have the paper trail that Roberts has.

But...it is bad that I am, regardless, very pleased that Bush chose a woman?

I dunno...Miers seems okay but it also seems like other female judges out there might have been better qualified. Corrigan, Callahan, and Clement all come to mind.

 

[Irvine511]

I dunno...Miers seems okay but it also seems like other female judges out there might have been better qualified. Corrigan, Callahan, and Clement all come to mind.

but qualifications don't matter; what matters is how loyal you are.

the WaPo says this today:

Miers came with him to the White House in 2001 as staff secretary, the person who screens all the documents that cross the president's desk. She was promoted to deputy chief of staff before Bush named her counsel after his reelection in November. She replaced Alberto R. Gonzales, another longtime Bush confidant, who was elevated to attorney general.

and Matt Yglesias finds this David Frum quote:

In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met.

she's also been a legal counsel to virtually ALL of Bush's potential scandals, especially his National Guard records. from a July 17, 2000 issue of Newsweek:

The Bushies' concern began while he was running for a second term as governor. A hard-nosed Dallas lawyer named Harriet Miers was retained to investigate the issue; state records show Miers was paid $19,000 by the Bush gubernatorial campaign. She and other aides quickly identified a problem--rumors that Bush had help from his father in getting into the National Guard back in 1968. Ben Barnes, a prominent Texas Democrat and a former speaker of the House in the state legislature, told friends he used his influence to get George W a guard slot after receiving a request from Houston oilman Sid Adger. Barnes said Adger told him he was calling on behalf of the elder George Bush, then a Texas congressman. Both Bushes deny seeking any help from Barnes or Adger, who has since passed away. Concerned that Barnes might go public with his allegations, the Bush campaign sent Don Evans, a friend of W's, to hear Barnes's story. Barnes acknowledged that he hadn't actually spoken directly to Bush Sr. and had no documents to back up his story. As the Bush campaign saw it, that let both Bushes off the hook. And the National Guard question seemed under control.

basically, i have no idea if she'll be good or not. what her nomination demonstrates to me, again, is that Bush values loyalty and hero-worship more than any other qualities in his appointees -- from head of FEMA to Attorney General to SCOTUS to Karen freakin' Hughes as some sort of diplomatic-soccer-mom to the Middle East.

 

[phanan]

Cause her qualifications don't matter at this point.

I don't know enough about her to pass any judgment at this point, but not having been a judge before did raise an eyebrow...

 

[nbcrusader]

what qualifications would those be?

Let's see. Making partner at a prominent law firm is quite an accomplishment.

But, wait. She became President of the law firm. A far greater accomplishment.

Add President of the Dallas Bar Association and Texas Bar Association and you have someone who is both talented and well respected.

These are great accomplishments for any person. To do this as a woman in "good ol' boy" Texas just adds to the accomplishment.

still, i do like the fact that she's a 60 year old bachelorette ... ahem ...

What is your implication here?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

considering that bush picked the nominee that the senate minority leader urged him to pick, i'm guessing there won't be much of a fight over her confirmation, much to the chagrin of chuckie schumer.

 

[Irvine511]

Let's see. Making partner at a prominent law firm is quite an accomplishment.

But, wait. She became President of the law firm. A far greater accomplishment.

Add President of the Dallas Bar Association and Texas Bar Association and you have someone who is both talented and well respected.

These are great accomplishments for any person. To do this as a woman in "good ol' boy" Texas just adds to the accomplishment.

she sounds like a fine lawyer. no question. but SCOTUS?

it seems to me as if her most distinguishing characteristic is her unshakable loyalty to Bush et al.

that, and lack of paper trail. and lack of judicial experience. and no experience arguing cases in front of the SCOTUS.

simply, as Frum has noted, there is nothing in here to place her at the forefront of lawyers in the United States (as opposed to Roberts).

What is your implication here?

what do you think is my implication here?

 

[nbcrusader]

what do you think is my implication here?

I think we should avoid putting words in each others mouths. I'd like you to be responsible for your statement.

 

[Irvine511]

I think we should avoid putting words in each others mouths. I'd like you to be responsible for your statement.

oh lighten up.

i'm being slightly humorous.

just what assumptions might one make about a 60 year old bachelorette?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

she's still waiting for mr. right... get it? mr. right? i crack myself up...

 

[verte76]

So, she's had a distinguished career. She's probably as qualified as anyone, even though she's never been a judge.

 

[Irvine511]

actually, verte, the right wing would disagree with you. witness, one, John Podhoretz, who writes for the right wing bible The National Review:

: "Another reason for Bush not to pick ... Gonzales or Miers is this: One of the Democratic talking points that is getting some traction is the Crony Talking Point -- the idea that this presidency is made up of friends and friends of friends who all do business together and whose qualifications matter less than their connections to GWB. Since nobody on earth aside from Bush would actually consider Gonzales or Miers a suitable Supreme Court nominee, the appointment of either would smack precisely of the cronyism with which he is (in my view) being unfairly tarred. Bush would be giving his critics some very serious ammunition to use against him at a time when he can't afford to do such a thing."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_25_corner-archive.asp#077952

 

[nbcrusader]

One "right wing" writer has listed a Democratic talking point, not a thesis as to why Miers is a bad pick.

Miers primary credentials were gained completely separate from the Bush White House.

Cronyism is just at this point.

 

[Irvine511]

One "right wing" writer has listed a Democratic talking point, not a thesis as to why Miers is a bad pick.

Miers primary credentials were gained completely separate from the Bush White House.

Cronyism is just at this point.

no way.

this is cronyism at it's most naked.

and it's not just one right wing writer -- it's a whole bunch of them, many of whom, to their credit, are dismanyed. like Bill Kirstol who, today, says he's "Disappionted, Depressed, and Demoralized":

I'M DISAPPOINTED, depressed and demoralized.

I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.

I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/166quhvd.asp

and the Democrats are generally happy with the nomination -- she'll be a Souter!

my posts have nothing to do with her as a nominee, because we simply don't know much about her, and everything to do with the arrogance with which Bush operates.

and check out more disappointment on www.redstate.org

after Brownie and now this, do you really think charges of cronyism are baseless? what more do you need than Bill Kristol -- Iraq War apologist and unabashed optimist extraordinairre --what more do you need?

 

[pax]

One "right wing" writer has listed a Democratic talking point, not a thesis as to why Miers is a bad pick.

How about two?

Trendsetter Bill Kristol says he's "disappointed, depressed, and demoralized," because "her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president." Right-wing loyalists at redstate.org are despondent over her campaign contributions to Democrats.

http://www.slate.com/id/2127371/

 

[pax]

Oops, Irvine beat me to it.

 

[nbcrusader]

If those who are disappointed with the appointment got their way, you'd be posting in opposition for different reasons.

Cronyism is appointment of the unqualified due to political connections. Many from both sides of the isle have suggested that a non-judge be appointed. I guess qualifications will only be met by the standard talking point litmus tests.

Frankly, the cynicism in me suggests that the "right wing disappointment" will only subdue the usual left wing outrage. If she appears centrist, then the appointment will proceed without the usual political drama.

 

[deep]

Originally posted by deep on 09-28-2005 at 05:58 PM -
Harriet Miers

seems like a poor choice.

 

[deep]

Cronyism is appointment of the unqualified due to political connections.

you nailed it there !

in his remarks

the President said

"She is well-suited"


and not

"well-qualified"

 

[nbcrusader]

What, then, would you consider base qualifications for a Justice?


It seems far easier to say she misses than to say where she misses.

 

[deep]

Roberts has qualifications and would have been on many lists for SCOTUS.

Miers would not be on any other list than W’s because of his close association with her.

He has had hundreds of conversations with her over the years. He once described her as a Pitt Bull in size six shoes. Bush, Cheney know her philosophy.



Cronyism determined her selection.
No doubt, there will be cases before the court that involve the Executive, WOT, unlawful combatants, etc.

He got his selection in the vein of Scalia, Thomas. She will be like Thomas and just follow Scalia in a 3 vote bloc.



Hatch claims he chose Ginsberg from a list Clinton had.
He was against Bruce Babbitt Senator from Colorado and settled for Ginsberg.
Harry Reid has done the same with Miers,

She will be confirmed.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

well i did overhear a report on abc this morning where she was quoted as saying that W is a "genius." that will certainly get a rise out of a lot of people...

chuckie schumer and teddy boy will certainly get their big girl panties in a bunch that w. shockingly enough nominated a gun toting conservitive as opposed to a tree hugging liberal, but based on comments such as these...

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was complimentary, issuing a statement that said he likes Miers and adding "the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."

... i'm guessing there will be only minimal resistance.

 

[Irvine511]

If those who are disappointed with the appointment got their way, you'd be posting in opposition for different reasons.

i am not opposing the appointment.

i am using the appointment to elucidate, once again, the myriad ways in which this president is a national embarassment.

 

[nbcrusader]

Roberts has qualifications and would have been on many lists for SCOTUS.

Miers would not be on any other list than W’s because of his close association with her.

He has had hundreds of conversations with her over the years. He once described her as a Pitt Bull in size six shoes. Bush, Cheney know her philosophy.



Cronyism determined her selection.
No doubt, there will be cases before the court that involve the Executive, WOT, unlawful combatants, etc.

He got his selection in the vein of Scalia, Thomas. She will be like Thomas and just follow Scalia in a 3 vote bloc.



Hatch claims he chose Ginsberg and Souter from a list Clinton had.
He was against Bruce Babbitt Senator from Colorado and settled for Ginsberg and Souter.

Harry Reid has done the same with Miers,

She will be confirmed.

She made Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's list. In fact, he suggested that she be nominated. I guess the Democratic leader is part of the "cronyism".

But, to my original question, what are the base qualifications for a Justice???

 

[deep]

Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the SCOTUS. I'm appalled:

She's 60. There were lots of highly qualified younger candidates out there who would have sat on the court for decades.
She has no judicial experience.
She has no public track record of proven conservative judicial values (what happened to Bush's 2000 promise to appoint people in the old of Scalia and Thomas?). How do we know she won't be another Souter? or Kennedy?
She's a Bush crony, which is an unfortunate choice for an administration that has been fairly charged with excessive cronyism (anybody remember ex-FEMA head Mike Brown?).
Her resume pales in comparison to those of some of the other leading candidates.
Why is the leader of a party that supposedly about merit and against affirmative action making an appointment that can only be explained as an affirmative action choice?
And if Bush was bound and determined to make an affirmative action choice, why not go with a more experienced and qualified woman like Edith Jones or minority like Emilio Garza?
This appointment reeks of cronyism, which along with prideful arrogance seems to be the besetting sin of the Bush presidency. At this point, I see no reason - none, nada, zilch - for conservatives who care about the courts to lift a finger to support this candidate.

Update: What he said, with bells on:

Only minutes after Bush appeared at the White House Monday to announce the nomination, Manuel Miranda, a conservative strategist and former aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist issued a scathing statement: "The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas, who had been the president's lawyer. The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it."

right wingers crying CRONYISM

Reid settled as did Hatch on Ginsberg

lesser evil prevails for politicians

 

[deep]

But, to my original question, what are the base qualifications for a Justice???

any and all who attacked Roberts never said appointment was based on personal relationship with W

his qualifications were unchallanged

Mier's only qualification is her relationship with W

it is cronyism

the fact that all sides mention this
with an administration that is rampant with it is very troubling.

 

[pax]

Um.

Has anyone considered the fact that this could be a decoy?

Nominate someone (a woman, no less) whose qualifications are an x quantity, if not especially scary, and get the Dems all riled up over having a candidate with no proven track record.

Rescind the candidtae and put up someone with a nice, long, thorough paper trail...that of a hard-line right-winger.

Brilliant, really.

My opinion is that the Dems should cut their losses.

 

[nbcrusader]

any and all who attacked Roberts never said appointment was based on personal relationship with W

his qualifications were unchallanged

Mier's only qualification is her relationship with W

it is cronyism

the fact that all sides mention this
with an administration that is rampant with it is very troubling.

Not only have you not answered the question, you dismiss a distinguished legal career to focus on your talking point.

I guess a White House Counsel could never be nominated with out the accusation of cronyism.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

reid thought she was a great choice up until he found out that his fellow dem's did not agree.

cronyism? it's all cronyism, it's all bullshit.

 

[verte76]

But, to my original question, what are the base qualifications for a Justice???

I would think that the person needs to be a lawyer, and I think many people would have preferred a judge.