The Official "Pick the Next SCOTUS Nominee" FYM Thread

[Irvine511]

My opinion is that the Dems should cut their losses.

true ... how bad could she be?

i am very surprised, i had totally thought we'd get a fire-and-brimstone right winger and instead we get ... i don't even know, and in fact, no one (but Bush) really knows.

perhaps this will finally shake Bush's base enough that his approval rating will fall below the 38-40% it's been hovering at since Katrina.

 

[pax]

true ... how bad could she be?

i am very surprised, i had totally thought we'd get a fire-and-brimstone right winger and instead we get ... i don't even know, and in fact, no one (but Bush) really knows.

Exactly. We have no idea and there's nothing to indicate that the confirmation hearings will give us an idea.

Still, though, I don't like to disparage the woman herself precisely because we know so little. One thing we can't argue with is that she seems to have been a good lawyer. Let's start there and see what else we can find out.

 

[Irvine511]

Still, though, I don't like to disparage the woman herself precisely because we know so little. One thing we can't argue with is that she seems to have been a good lawyer. Let's start there and see what else we can find out.

totally fair.

i suppose my points have been about Bush, though i will say that, while she seems like a very competent lawyer, so are half the parents of my friends who grew up in DC (a town where everyone is either a reporter or a lawyer).

 

[jay canseco]

Knowing so little about her, I'm just hoping she does well and impresses during the confirmation hearings. I'd hate for an Admiral Stockdale situation to materialise.

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

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

History has shown that many justices were not ever judges before being named to the court. A short list would be John Marshall, who was Chief Justice from 1801-1835 was not a judge. It is from Marshalls ruling in Marbury v. Madison that we get the policy of judicial review. A few others include Lewis Brandeis (the first Jew on the SUpreme COurt and the originator of some of Woodrow Wlsons ideas labeled the New Freedom), Felix Frankfurter, and Earl Warren. I am sure there are others, but that is what comes to mind right now. Therefore, I would not consider being a judge as a prerequisite to being in the Supreme Court.

 

[Irvine511]

History has shown that many justices were not ever judges before being named to the court. A short list would be John Marshall, who was Chief Justice from 1801-1835 was not a judge. It is from Marshalls ruling in Marbury v. Madison that we get the policy of judicial review. A few others include Lewis Brandeis (the first Jew on the SUpreme COurt and the originator of some of Woodrow Wlsons ideas labeled the New Freedom), Felix Frankfurter, and Earl Warren. I am sure there are others, but that is what comes to mind right now. Therefore, I would not consider being a judge as a prerequisite to being in the Supreme Court.

you're right, it's not a prereq, but it hasn't happened in, like, 40 years.

however, NBC asked a question -- what qualifies someone to be a SC Judge?

i don't think we're going to get a checklist, ever, and it seems that when you're dealing with an elite group of lawyers, theoretically the finest lawyers in the United States, they're all going to have a few things on their resumes. like with elite colleges, these things act as more qualifiers (like stellar grades and high SAT scores), and it's the intangibles and the sheer luck of circumstance that makes one become the nominee.

some things that, i think, would be on the resume of all of those on the short list would be:

-- experience practicing with a highly distinguished law firm

-- practicing constitutional law

-- experience with arguing big cases, especially in front of the Supreme Court

-- was on law review at a distinguished law

-- a weath of writings on any of the current important legal issues



Mier has done none of these things.

again, i think this pick tells us more about Bush. i think we all -- even his defenders -- can agree that this is a deeply arrogant and insecure person who refuses to bend in the face of criticism. perhaps this is a good thing, if you agree with his conduct in the war on terror. it also leads to such national embarassments as the "Mission Accomplished" yay-i-get-to-play-fighter-pilot.

perhaps the motivation to appoint such a blatant and undestingusihed crony is to stick a middle finger in the face of those who accuse him of cronyism?

 

[nbcrusader]

however, NBC asked a question -- what qualifies someone to be a SC Judge?

i don't think we're going to get a checklist, ever, and it seems that when you're dealing with an elite group of lawyers, theoretically the finest lawyers in the United States, they're all going to have a few things on their resumes. like with elite colleges, these things act as more qualifiers (like stellar grades and high SAT scores), and it's the intangibles and the sheer luck of circumstance that makes one become the nominee.

some things that, i think, would be on the resume of all of those on the short list would be:

-- experience practicing with a highly distinguished law firm

-- practicing constitutional law

-- experience with arguing big cases, especially in front of the Supreme Court

-- was on law review at a distinguished law

-- a weath of writings on any of the current important legal issues

Mier has done none of these things.

You raise some interesting points of qualification. While all are good points of experience, many may exclude people you otherwise would deem qualified.

The distinguished law firm may be considered too elitist by some. Mier meets this qualification, however, by practicing at a distinguished Dallas firm (an becoming the managing partner).

Practicing constitutional law would eliminate the majority of lawyers as it is a very narrow field.

Experience with big cases, especially before the Supreme Court would further limit the field. Many litigators dream of going before the Supreme Court, but this is client need driven, not an indicator of ability.

Law review is used as an early measuring stick of attorney performance. Its value fades over time. Realize that admission to a law review is based on a students first year grades. Many fine lawyers didn't make law review and plenty of mediocre lawyers did - simply because it is based on those first year grades.

A wealth of writings on current issues - this arena is usually reserved for law school professors. I guess if you include a judge's published opinion, you might expand this category a little. It seems to help in a political evaluation of nominee, but that raises a whole new realm of questions.

 

[Irvine511]

You raise some interesting points of qualification. While all are good points of experience, many may exclude people you otherwise would deem qualified.

The distinguished law firm may be considered too elitist by some. Mier meets this qualification, however, by practicing at a distinguished Dallas firm (an becoming the managing partner).

Practicing constitutional law would eliminate the majority of lawyers as it is a very narrow field.

Experience with big cases, especially before the Supreme Court would further limit the field. Many litigators dream of going before the Supreme Court, but this is client need driven, not an indicator of ability.

Law review is used as an early measuring stick of attorney performance. Its value fades over time. Realize that admission to a law review is based on a students first year grades. Many fine lawyers didn't make law review and plenty of mediocre lawyers did - simply because it is based on those first year grades.

A wealth of writings on current issues - this arena is usually reserved for law school professors. I guess if you include a judge's published opinion, you might expand this category a little. It seems to help in a political evaluation of nominee, but that raises a whole new realm of questions.

like i said, there's no check list. these are just some qualifications/resume items. while you raise interesting caveats to each of these, not a single one isn't an appropriate means to guage the quality of the candidate.

everyone on the right, however, is crying cronyism, from the NRO people to Michelle Malkin to David Frum. most point to at least half a dozen more qualified (on paper) women and wonder,

it seems that Mier's chief qualification is that the president likes her.

 

[nbcrusader]

Your boss likes you = good for getting a promotion.

 

[Irvine511]

Your boss likes you = good for getting a promotion.

to the Supreme Court?