|
| Monday, October 03, 2005 |
| He's Done it Again |
Harriet Miers was supposed to help select the nominee, not to be it, just as Cheney was supposed to help select the VP, not be it. Bush once again has proven that he values loyalty above everything else, including qualifications.
Miers has never been a judge. In my opinion, that's not ideal. Sure there have been plenty of justices who also had never been a judge until they get to the Supreme Court. I'd argue those people were under-qualified too... don't get me started on whether I think Rehnquist was a good judge.
I'm sorry, but some of the thing Bush touted as "qualifications" for Miers made me laugh. Dallas City Council? President of city and state bar associations? Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission? Those are administrative positions. The Supreme Court should be comprised of judicial scholars, brilliant academic people who dazzle you with intellect, and whose minds seem to work faster than the rest of us. Elected positions do not in any way qualify someone for the academic challenge that is interpreting the Constitution.
This all comes back to our moron of a President, who believes in his own judgment so much that he believes in filling important positions with people he knows and trusts, rather than people who are objectively qualified. Which gets us Michael Brown at FEMA, John Bolton at the UN, and now his personal attorney potentially with a lifetime appointment to the highest academic position in the country. |
posted by CB @ 7:34 AM   |
|
| 3 Comments: |
-
It might not be as moronic as you think. I agree that, at least on the surface, Meiers appears to be underqualified to serve on the Court, and I think that is intentional. The Republicans know that the democrats are much more likely to challenge this nominee. I think they are setting up a straw man (straw woman?). If dems take the bait and filibuster or force a withdrawal, expect to see a more conservative justice nominated. It will be much harder for the dems to challenge two in a row.
That being said, we know little about Meier's qualifications yet. Frankly, it doesn't take much judicial experience to be a good Supreme Court justice. You simply have to be brilliant and have a great understanding of the law. It remains to be seen whether she has those traits.
-
It will definitely be interesting to watch, especially with the way it appears to be shaping up. The most vocal questioner of Miers so far... Sam Brownback! Conservatives might more likely to challenge this one than Democrats, especially with things coming out about her potential support of gay rights (she's unmarried...), and unknown position on Roe.
-
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recent Posts |
|
| Archives |
|
| Contact Me |
| Email me |
| Template by |
 |
|
|
It might not be as moronic as you think. I agree that, at least on the surface, Meiers appears to be underqualified to serve on the Court, and I think that is intentional. The Republicans know that the democrats are much more likely to challenge this nominee. I think they are setting up a straw man (straw woman?). If dems take the bait and filibuster or force a withdrawal, expect to see a more conservative justice nominated. It will be much harder for the dems to challenge two in a row.
That being said, we know little about Meier's qualifications yet. Frankly, it doesn't take much judicial experience to be a good Supreme Court justice. You simply have to be brilliant and have a great understanding of the law. It remains to be seen whether she has those traits.