And The Next Nominee for SCOTUS Is...

[Ted Striker]

[Ted Striker]

Somebody needs to give the SCROTUM website an upgrade, it's looking very 1996ish:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/about.html

Commie get on it!

[chequita guevara]

I gotta job, thanks. But damn that looks bad.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Something is wrong when Nicole Richie has a better way to connect to the public than the SCOTUS...

http://nicole-richie.org/

[Ted Striker]

Seriously, that one line you just wrote is an example of the extreme f'd up priorities of our times.

[Sava]

Cronyism and the court
Other presidents have appointed their friends to the Supreme Court. But even the cronies were better qualified than Harriet Miers.

By Geoffrey R. Stone
Published October 4, 2005

Only days after President Bush nominated John G. Roberts Jr. to replace U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, I urged my fellow liberals to "sheathe their swords." Because Roberts is a "brilliant ... individual with superb legal skills," I endorsed his confirmation--even though conceding that he would likely (and regrettably) be a good deal more conservative than Justice O'Connor. When it comes to the U.S. Supreme Court, I argued, excellence matters.

Now we are presented with an entirely different kettle of fish. I have been a professor of constitutional law for more than 30 years and an editor of the Supreme Court Review for more than a decade, but until President Bush dredged up Harriet Miers of Dallas to join him in the White House, I'd never even heard of her.

Nominees to the Supreme Court are supposed to be individuals with serious records of achievement in the law. Consider those who have been confirmed over the last quarter century:

- John Roberts, Harvard Law School, law clerk to Justice William Rehnquist, among the finest appellate advocates in the nation.

- Stephen Breyer, law clerk to Justice Arthur Goldberg, distinguished scholar of constitutional and administrative law at Harvard Law School, judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 15 years.

- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, professor at Columbia Law School, one of the nation's leading Supreme Court advocates, judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 13 years.

- Clarence Thomas, Yale Law School, chairman of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

- David Souter, Rhodes scholar, Harvard Law School, justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

- Anthony Kennedy, Harvard Law School, professor of constitutional law for 23 years, judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 13 years.

- Antonin Scalia, influential scholar of constitutional and administrative law at the University of Chicago, judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for five years.

- Sandra Day O'Connor, Stanford Law School, majority leader of the Arizona Senate, state court judge for six years.

Now consider Miers. She received her law degree in 1970 from Southern Methodist University, which is not even among the top 50 law schools in the nation. She then spent 30 years as a commercial litigator with a law firm in Dallas. Her most notable achievement before Bush retained her as his private lawyer in 1993 was a brief stint as president of the Texas State Bar. After she made her connection with then-Gov. Bush, he appointed her head of the Texas Lottery Commission. The president then brought her with him to Washington, and last year appointed her White House counsel. From there to the United States Supreme Court? Even nominees who have not been confirmed--Robert Bork, Douglas Ginsburg, Clement Haynesworth Jr., (even) G. Harrold Carswell--were far more qualified than Miers.

Let me be clear. I have no knowledge about Miers' views on the Constitution. I assume she's conservative but perhaps not. That's not the point. The point, rather, is that she appears to be unqualified for the position. There is nothing in her record that distinguishes her from tens of thousands of other lawyers in the United States, most of whom are undoubtedly fine lawyers, but few of whom have the background, experience or intellectual depth to serve successfully on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decides fundamental questions of freedom of speech, equality, separation of power, federalism, religious liberty and privacy. The goal is not just to vote, but to bring a high level of wisdom, experience, principle and intellect to the process of judging. It is no place for rank amateurs, especially rank amateurs with no record of relevant achievement.

From all appearances, this is rank cronyism. Other presidents have appointed their friends to the Supreme Court. But even the cronies were far more experienced and better qualified than Miers. Justices like Abe Fortas, Byron White and Fred Vinson were close friends of Presidents Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy and Harry Truman. But they were also individuals with impressive achievements in the law and government service. Miers' record pales by comparison.

When President Richard Nixon, no fan of the Supreme Court, nominated the forgettable G. Harrold Carswell 35 years ago, Nebraska Sen. Roman Hruska defended the nomination with an unforgettable bit of wisdom: "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers," Hruska declared. "They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there."

Have we sunk, again, to that level?

I cared enough about the Supreme Court to support John Roberts. And I care enough to oppose Harriet Miers, unless she demonstrates something in the hearings she has never shown before.

----------

Geoffrey R. Stone is a professor of law at the University of Chicago and the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism."



Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...commentary-hed

good op-ed in the Tribune today

[rah]

Just because she's never been a judge doesn't make her not qualified, which Stone obviously disagrees with.
Actually it looks like that's the main criteria for Stone.
Just his opinion. Congress will get their shot.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No rah, even without the judge experience, she doesn't seem to be that qualified. A decent lawyer perhaps, but nothing special. Tons of people like her around. Her law school isn't a top tier one. She joined a big firm, yes, but so do thousands across the country. Her only somewhat different experience is White House counsel.

[Sava]

Originally posted by rah
Just because she's never been a judge doesn't make her not qualified, which Stone obviously disagrees with.
Actually it looks like that's the main criteria for Stone.
Just his opinion. Congress will get their shot.

He talked about her less than stellar career as a commercial lawyer...

but honestly... what does set her apart from the thousands of other lawyers with her qualifications (or lack thereof)?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Good article Sava. I especially like

When President Richard Nixon, no fan of the Supreme Court, nominated the forgettable G. Harrold Carswell 35 years ago, Nebraska Sen. Roman Hruska defended the nomination with an unforgettable bit of wisdom: "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers," Hruska declared. "They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there."

Homer Simpson for SCOTUS.

[rah]

Many of the "so called qualified candidates" would be burned at the stake during confirmations. With this type of attitude what do the expect is going to happen.
Less controverisial (and probably less qualified) will be put forth to avoid the blood bath. Prior history is not necessarily a acurate indicator of how well that nominee will serve the court in the future.

Please note: I'm not stating that she is the most qualified person for the job. I'm saying it doesn't make her not qualified. But, I repeat, the torch jobs are changing who CAN get nominated. It's the fault of the people involved in the process. Bush wanted a woman or a minority, and it was obvious that the more qualified ones wouldn't have stood a chance. I think this was just a compromise, and we all know about compromises.

I'm sure Kennedy would try to crucify Jesus Christ again if Bush could nominate him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Many of the "so called qualified candidates" would be burned at the stake during confirmations. With this type of attitude what do the expect is going to happen.

Roberts was burned at the stake?

I'm sure Kennedy would try to crucify Jesus Christ again if Bush could nominate him.

Wouldn't happen... in this day and age, Christ would be a socialist .

[Sava]

Originally posted by rah

I'm sure Kennedy would try to crucify Jesus Christ again if Bush could nominate him.

If Jesus returned, the right wingers would call him a communist.

"You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

23When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. 24Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." ---Luke 18: 22-25

[Sava]

zomfg imran... nice xpost!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Many of the "so called qualified candidates" would be burned at the stake during confirmations. With this type of attitude what do the expect is going to happen.

Roberts was burned at the stake?

Not that I agree with putting out Meiers by any stretch but regarding Roberts it went what 77 to 23. Not the ringing endorsements of times past for the man often claimed as the most qualified for the position ever.

Plus you got all those nice rumors flying about him being gay, a racist, and a misogynistic bastard. Not exactly befitting the house of deliberative process if you get my drift.