People are asking me why I haven’t commented on Bush having selected What’s Her Name for the high court.
Honestly, I hadn’t before because I knew nothing about her, other than that she’s a Bushtush (someone whose lips are permanently curved into the shape of Bush’s buttocks).
But I’ve come to realize that her appointment signals something: That, despite all previous appearances to the contrary, George W. Bush really IS capable of learning from history.
Why? Because previous conservative presidents have endeavored to control the court by appointing judges with a long, proud history of conservative rulings. And then, to their vast annoyance, their appointees wound up being far more liberal on the bench than expected.
So Bush, who’s never seen a separation of power that he didn’t want to obliterate in favor of executive branch control, came up with a simple answer: Appoint a Bushtush. Doesn’t matter that she’s not a judge. Doesn’t matter that she has no record to speak of (indeed, that’s a plus.) All that matters is that, for as long as he’s sucking oxygen, George W. Bush knows he’s going to be able to pick up the phone, call What’s Her Name, and get her to do what he wants. Her agenda will lockstep match his.
And thus does Bush yet again act in a manner contrary to Constitutional intent.
Ðámņ these activist presidents.
PAD
• 
On the plus side, the Freedom Clock dropped under 1200 the other day.
Could’ve been worse. That pretty much sums up my feelings on this appointment.
Will she strictly adhere to Bush’s wishes? I dunno. I personally get the feeling 90% of the positions he advocates, he advocates solely to court his conservative base. So maybe that won’t matter after he leaves office. And being on the highest court in the land can give anyone a heady rush of independence, so maybe she’ll develop her own mind.
I don’t expect her to radically change her views, which are obviously compatible with Bush’s, but on the other hand, Bush seems largely content to use conservative social issues for political gain, and then try to avoid any real fights on it when it comes to policy-making. That’s the core of conservative fears about this appointment, and I guess that’s the hope for everyone else.
Also, the idea of someone who considers bush “the most intelligent person (she’s) ever met” in such an important position scares me.
Michael Brunner, that’s exactly the reason why I oppose her.
I’ve got to go with a simple “unqualified” on this one.
No experience, no clear-cut legal opinions, no real signs of brilliance (legal or otherwise). Roberts didn’t thrill me, but he certainly showed ample evidence of intelligence and even thoughtfulness. Miers has shown neither — her only dominant attribute is unflinching loyalty to Bush.
For the record, this is the second time Bush is attempting to put into high office someone whose job in the past has been to protect his sorry legal ášš. Now Gonzalez is A.G., and Miers has been nominated for the highest court in the land.
Roberts was in no way worth a filibuster, and I’m glad none surfaced. This one: let ‘er rip, if things even get that far. I remain hopeful that for once, maybe people are waking up and saying “um, dude, there’s no way you’re serious when you say she was your best choice.”
TWL
“Being a judge” is not any kind of requirement for being a Justice on the Supreme Court. In fact, a good chunk of them have had no prior bench experience — the late William Rehnquist the most recent example.
J.
I never said it was a requirement because, well, I know stuff. And I knew Rehnquist wasn’t a judge before being appointed to the Bench. I question the “good chunk” designation, and wonder how many SC justices have not been judges beforehand.
Furthermore, as noted, it suits Bush’s purposes that she isn’t a judge. Doesn’t give those in charge of confirmation any clear idea of her views. But since Bush appointed her, I think we pretty much know what her views are: His.
PAD
Peter: Actually Jay Tea’s comments about a “good chunk” of the Justices not previously being judges is correct. There have been plenty of Non Judges. In addition, there is no Constitutional requirement that a Justice even be a lawyer.
On the other hand comment sense dictates that this current choice is not qualified for such an important position. She is clearly a turkey.
They need to book Miers into a motel ASAP and keep her there ’til hearings begin. That way, when they ask if she has any experience that qualifies her to hold the position for which she’s interviewing, she won’t be lying when she replies, “Well, no, but I *did* sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night…”
Wildcat
I pretty much threw up my hands after hearing him saying something to the effect that “I know her. I know that she will never change. She will have the same opinions years from now that she has today.” As a counselor, I am always concerned when I run into people who hold fast to all of the beliefs and perceptions that they were indoctrinated with as small children. Growth is not only healthy, it is imperative when interacting with more than one’s immediate family.
I don’t expect people to change to think like myself (In fact, this would bore me to hëll). I do expect them to be open enough to hear what others have to say, what observable facts indicate, and view evidence and patterns in the world around them as it comes to pass. It is called enlightenment and leads to a basic understanding of the world. Georgie has never shown this ability and that has always troubled me. Due to repeating the same behavior, statements and tantrums, he has closed himself off from looking objectively at anything and has shown himself to have little to no learning curve.
Fred
I believe the separation of powers has long since been eroded by the legislative branch and the legislative branch, by the former’s desire to create law in lieu of reading the Constitution, and the latter’s desire to make “advise and consent” into a political football meant to destroy candidates on the basis that the other side nominated the candidate.
That said, it’s a sad sad thing that the Republicans — in control of the White House and the Congress — can’t nominate and push through a known proven Constitutionalist. The fact that they’re all cowering from such a fight is alarming, to say the least.
Rehnquist was deputy AG, though. i understand that many of the other non-judge Justices had similar backgrounds.
Miers is a personal legal counsel and former lottery commissioner.
at least she’s not someone like Janice Rodgers Brown with a clear record of favoring corporate rights over individual rights.
still, pretty much all we have to back Miers is that G.W. has faith in her.
Boy, if you think you can call ANY woman on the phone and get her to do what you want, you live in a different world than I do…
Weird choice, but, well, no, just a weird choice…
Bush appointed her? I though that the President gets to pick who he wants, but the Senate has to approve the choice.
Seems like most of the vocal opposition to Miers has been from the right, the argument being that while she MAY well turn out to be a good conservative judge, there are plenty of perfectly solid quality men and women who are UNDOUBTEDLY fit for the job. Why gamble, as Bush’s father did with Souter?
Certainly she is not “the best person” for the job but I doubt that ANY of the people who got to the position were factually “the best”. It’s a big world.
In a perfect world, I would say that the Senate should probably confirm her, unless they can demonstrate that she is unfit. However, in this perfect world, “unfit” would not mean simply not conforming to one’s political philosophy. But that ship has sailed. Democrats have made it clear that there will be litmus tests for future judges and Republicans will certainly follow suit; the days where a very liberal judge like Justice Ginsburg would get a 96 to 3 vote in favor, despite refusing to answer every hypothetical question put forward by senate blowhards are gone.
Given that the system has been politicized to a degree unimaginable a few decades ago, a President had best just nominate the most qualified articulate person they can find (and who is willing to have their name and family smeared by the Party Out Of Power, whichever it may be.) That will eliminate a lot of very qualified people but that’s reality. Miers doesn’t strike me at first glance as likely to win–Republicans have reason to be wary and Democrats will love the opportunity to hand Bush a defeat–even if it ultimately results in a more MORE conservative justice being chosen.
I suspect she may withdraw her name.
Also meant to mention, way off topic–I don’t know if anyone who frequents this board lives or has family in the areas affected by the massive earthquake that hit Asia but if so, I hope they are alright. The death toll seems to be rising at a horrific rate and given the isolation of some villages in the affected areas it may be even worse than we know.
Miers doesn’t strike me at first glance as likely to win–Republicans have reason to be wary and Democrats will love the opportunity to hand Bush a defeat–even if it ultimately results in a more MORE conservative justice being chosen.
Well, if that happens, at least you’d have someone competent.
Not a loss in my book.
A list of Justices with no prior judicial experience can be found at http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html
Some pretty distinguished names on it, such as Reinquist and Powell on the current or just past Court, Bryon White, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Earl Warren, and Louis Brandeis.
Y’know, what I honestly can’t figure out is how Bush manages to inspire such loyalty in his cronies. He’s never struck me as particularly charismatic, and he’s certainly not visionary. Only thing I can come up with is a quid pro quo expectation of favor exchanges, but the loyalty seems stronger than that alone’d justify.
Wildcat,
That’s bad even by my jokes standards.
God, I wish I had thought of that one first.
🙂
I pretty much threw up my hands after hearing him saying something to the effect that “I know her. I know that she will never change. She will have the same opinions years from now that she has today.” As a counselor, I am always concerned when I run into people who hold fast to all of the beliefs and perceptions that they were indoctrinated with as small children. Growth is not only healthy, it is imperative when interacting with more than one’s immediate family.
As I’ve said before around these parts, one of the very few Stan Lee philosophical musings that rings 100% true for me relates to this. It’s from the first issue of Spectacular Spider-Man (the ’60s magazine, not the later comic), and is either a musing from George Stacy or Joe Robertson, depending on whether you read the original or in the adaptation it had later.
Stacy/Robbie is getting ready to look through some background material on a charismatic candidate who’s come out of nowhere, and JJJ scoffs that there’s no need for such: “I know all I need to know about him.”
As Jonah walks away, Stacy/Robbie thinks to himself, “God save us from those who know all they need to know … about anything.”
I’ve been coming back to that statement a lot in the last five years.
TWL
what I honestly can’t figure out is how Bush manages to inspire such loyalty in his cronies
I don’t think it’s loyalty so much as ‘if he goes down, we all go down, so we have to cover his ášš to protect ours.’
I don’t follow the assumption that this judge will do whatever Bush wants just because he appointed her. The purpose of the appointment for life is to, in theory, make judges above political concerns. Bush wouldn’t have any real power over her after her appointment.
It has nothing to do with him having power over her. It’s that she’s a croney. She’ll WANT to keep him happy.
I think that’s part of why Bush likes to work with older woman. My guess is that, since he’s a dunce, they tend to mother him…as opposed to men who just think he’s an idiot.
PAD
I think it’s great how after Katrina and Brownie, now the Republicans get on the Administration about anything that might look like Bush giving High Priority Job’s to unqualified people. They are going to be Busy for the next 3 years he’s in office, cause I think John Stewart was right, Katrina is Bush’s Monica.
Sure, there have in fact been a good number of SCOTUS justices with no prior judicial experience. However, the goodly number of those did have significant administrative, governmental, or legal scholarship experience.
According to the list linked by Tom, exactly 6 SCUTUS justices have come from private practice. That isn’t entirely accurate, as Fuller did have state government experience prior to serving on the SCOTUS. Of the remaining 5, one graduated from Yale, another from Harvard (back when that actually meant more than it does today), one was a doctor first, taught himself the law, and was very prominent in state politics, and a fourth had a private practice of national interest. The fifth was none of that, but is often blamed for the reason why the 16th Amendment was necessary. Which, depending on your view, could be either a good or a bad thing, I suppose.
Point being, of the 5 Justices that came from private practice, 4 of them had proven that they were significant legal presences. The odd duck from that set is viewed fairly negatively by most.
We’ve had 112 SCOTUS justices, and exactly ONE has had a pedigree close to Miers. 111 have either had prior judicial experience, significant government experience, and/or (in most cases it’s AND) significant legal scholarship experience prior to serving on the court. The bulk of the SCOTUS justices have been among the most respected legal minds of the time. And no disrespect to Miers, who I am sure is a fine lawyer, but she’s no where near the caliber of a Rehnquist or a Brandeis.
Not to mention that for the past decade, her main function as a lawyer has been to keep Bush electable, bury his skeletons, and essentially make sure he didn’t screw up so badly that he’d not be able to sit in office.
PAD: “I question the “good chunk” designation, and wonder how many SC justices have not been judges beforehand.”
Abut half, as I recall. However, all of the current Supreme Court judges spent time on the bench and the nomination of a non-judge to this position is a very uncommon practice in the modern world. Furthermore, an examination of some SC judges without this sort background typically reveals that the individual had some sort of comparable experience qualifying them for the position.
Taking a quick look through a few:
William Rehnquist served as Assistant Attorney General to John Mitchell in the years immediately preceding his appointment to the Supreme Court.
Lewis Powell served as the president of the American Bar Association previous to his appointment.
Arthur Goldberg was a prominent and well-known labor lawyer who was directly involved in the merger of the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations, among other notable achievements.
Earl Warren was the District Attorney of California’s Alameda County (which includes Oakland and Berkeley), California’s State Attorney General, and ultimately the Governor of California. And of course, Warren was Thomas Dewey’s running mate in the 1948 Presidential Election.
Tom C. Clark was the civil District Attorney for the city of Dallas. He was also the US Attorney General.
Hugo Black had been the Prosecuting Attorney of Jefferson County, Alabama. He was also a Senator.
William Douglas was known as an expert on commercial litigation and bankruptcy, and was chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Comission previous to his appointment to the Supreme Court.
Felix Frankfurter was William Howard Taft’s Secretary of War. Also, he was a professor at Harvard Law School.
Louis Brandeis authored the Brandeis Brief, the first application of Social Science to law, which still has a huge influence on American law today.
…and Harriet Miers? What’s her resume looking like?
White House counsel, February 2005-present;
White House deputy chief of staff for policy, 2003-2004;
White House staff secretary, 2001-2003;
Texas Lottery Commission chairwoman, 1995-2000;
Attorney in private practice, Locke Liddell & Sapp in Dallas, Texas, 1972-1999;
Dallas City Council member, 1989-1991
Not even in the same category as the rest, as far as I can see.
That said, there are undoubtedly some individuals in the past who rose to similar positions while equally unqualified. However, that’s hardly a good basis for justification of a life long appointment of considerable influence.
Why can’t Bush gives his buddies jobs that aren’t going to shape our lives? How about appointing your cronies as the ambassador to Brazil or something non-threatening.
But picking random people, first for the head of FEMA, now for the flippin’ supreme court … this is our government, right, not a frat?
PS – I don’t know if it’s been posted here, but did you hear that Bush came out with his view on Roe vs. Wade? Listen, he doesn’t care how poor people got out of New Orleans.
bush is in a meeting with his top generals. they inform him “sir, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed today”.
bush responds “That’s terrible. how awful”
There’s a moments pause, during which the generals wonder why bush is suddenly so concerened about 3 soldiers.
Then bush asks “How many is in a brazillion?”
PAD, obviously a lot of the right wing camp is NOT happy with this. And I don’t think it is staged to fake out the Democrats. While I don’t agree with your portrayal of her of simply being a Bush “yes woman,” I do admit that since she works so closely with him, Bush has to have some idea of what she believes and would do. I am not fully comfortable with this one either (for other reasons). But Bush is in no way skirting the constitutional intent. And there are 100 Senators who get to evaluate his recommendation.
Bottom line, I think you are right to the extent that you won’t like how she rules. Just as I did not like (and do not like) the justices Pres. Clinton appointed. But the constitutional intent is that this is what a president gets to do — appoint judges. It is up to the Senate to affirm or not.
Iowa Jim
But since Bush appointed her, I think we pretty much know what her views are: His.
As we’ve seen, previous Republican presidents have assumed this about their nominations, and were “burned” for it.
It seems that getting on the SC is a pretty liberating experience for many (and I don’t say this based on the notion of political camps).
The problem with Bush is that I honestly believe he’s stupid enough to think that, if Miers is confirmed, she’ll bend over backwards to judge based on Bush’s wishes.
That her loyalty to him will overrule everything – Bush’s own comments on Miers seem to support this notion.
But as I mentioned above, this just hasn’t happened in recent decades.
I’m not sold on this nomination by any means. However, looking at the “spin”, they seem to want to take someone with “real world” experience and put them on the court. Okay, fine, but what about Meier is so “real world” that it elevates her over others?
She was in private practice for a lot of years, ran the Texas Lottery and the Texas State Bar before coming to the White House.
Is there anything on this list that makes one think that her “real world” experience is somehow so great that it’s worth a lifetime appointment to the highest court? Frankly, for real world experience, I’d rather see a businessman-turned-mayor to get the kind of “down in the trenches” worldview they seem to be wanting. I can’t name any names offhand, but Meier is positively underwhelming on nearly all counts.
Look at it this way, though, at least she never worked for Halliburton 🙂
“Look at it this way, though, at least she never worked for Halliburton :)”
That we know of.
I sure wouldn’t rule it out.
PAD
“Why can’t Bush gives his buddies jobs that aren’t going to shape our lives?”
Because that’d pìšš øff his buddies, and they’ll stop being his buddies as a result.
Besides, it’s not as if he will suffer if they screw up. He and his interests are all rich enough to buy their way out of any calamity that might ensue, and that’s all that matters. If the rest of us — the folks in the 99.95% of the population that aren’t the “haves and have mores” — suffer as a result…
…well, that’s when he breaks out the “aw shucks” conservative compassionism crocodile tears act.
–R.J.
I think Bush, and everyone he choses for positions or nominates as the case calls or it have been taken over by the Goa’uld. Bush is just trying to soften us up for when the rest of the system lords get here. We have been living in a foothold situation for 5 years. We’re all doomed!
JAC
I don’t know how to insert links, but here’s an interesting story from that famous liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal…
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112864645334762361-QPqSomDgNvRS82HisyZ3NexLQFY_20061007.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
So much for the lady being a strict constructionist, hey?
Democrats have made it clear that there will be litmus tests for future judges and Republicans will certainly follow suit;
Republicans have already followed suit and in fact, have been calling for a “litmus test” on SC nominees since the days of Reagan. Why do you think Souter and O’Conner are considered traitors to the right? Because they didn’t follow the script and vote to overturn Roe v. Wade as was expected. It’s the same reason that Dobson has been all over TV crowing about thinks he “probably shouldn’t know” because he’s been let in on the secret handshake. In this way, the Miers nomination is a more important one than Roberts’ was for both the pro-life and pro-choice camps. Roberts replaced Renquist who always voted pro-life. Miers will replace O’Conner and thus tilt the court one more vote closer towards overturing RVW.
Appointing an SC justice has always been a crapshoot for a president because many have had come to look at things differently once they put on the robe. It’s not really anything new. Truman once called on of his own appointees a “dumb son of a bìŧçh” for voting against positions Truman thought he held.
I really do believe that in this case, the “fix” is in and there has been a secret quid pro quo for Miers to vote against Roe v. Wade in exchange for her nominee. It’s why she has been tapped ahead of dozens if not hundreds of more qualified candidates.
And yes, I know, the president has the right to nominate whomever he chooses, but “advice and consent of the Senate” is supposed to mean more than just rubber stamping his picks. The clear intent (for you original intent people) of the founding fathers was for the Senate to review the qualifications of each candidate in detail. It is supposed to mean more than just checking their views on hot button issues, so both sides have failed on that account.
If Miers is confirmed, though, we’ll have a justice who is on a mission to overturn RVW, not because it’s bad law (which I happen to think it is), but because it makes bad social policy.
If that isn’t the very definition of that that great bugaboo the republicans rail against, the activist judge, then I don’t know what is.
Republicans have already followed suit and in fact, have been calling for a “litmus test” on SC nominees since the days of Reagan.
reality: Clinton nominated two justices to the supreme court:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- won approval 96 to 3
Stephen Breyer- won approval 87 to 9
republicans at that time were willing to confirm justices who were capable, even if they did not agree with their politics. The fact that 22 Democratic senators were willing to vote against the equally (at least) qualified John Roberts tells you how poisoned the atmosphere has gotten. I suspect that the next Democratic president will have the same difficulty with his or her nominations from the Republicans.
I personally disagree with this–just because your opponents are acting dishonorably it doesn’t follow that you should as well.
Sorry, Bill — I don’t agree that voting against someone based on your own personal convictions is somehow dishonorable.
I’ve said before that I’d probably have voted against Roberts were I in the Senate, and I’ll stand by that. He and I disagree profoundly on enough matters that I could not in good conscience support placing him on the high court.
However, I do recognize that he is very well qualified by several different measures, and I respect that. That’s why I’ve also said that while I’d personally vote against him, I would not support an attempt to filibuster.
I’m admittedly biased towards considering myself reasonable, but I fail to see how the two paragraphs above constitute poisoning the atmosphere or acting in a dishonorable fashion.
Besides, if you want to be dismissive with lines like “Reality”, you’re not exactly on the high ground when others quote Republican activists who DO in fact explicitly ask for the litmus test Den describes and you mock.
(As for Miers … well, as I’ve also said, all bets are off there. I consider her manifestly UNqualified, and I’m clearly not alone in that assessment.)
TWL
One really interesting question I’ve heard come up is who has the burden of proof? Or more saliently, does the nominee and President have the burden to show why someone should be confirmed, or does the Senate have the burden of showing why someone shouldn’t be confirmed? I don’t mind allowing the President some leewau in civilian appointments (because incompetent appointees can always be removed from their positions), but with a lifetime appointment, the onus definitely lies with the President.
Another idea I’ve seen floated is that Miers is in part Bush’s insurance against torture blowback. Apparently she and Roberts lean towards the idea of the Executive having wide latitude in times of war. In the increasingly likely event that the administration is made to answer for the “fraternity pranks” committed and approved under its watch, having a couple of understanding judges on the SCOTUS would really be handy.
Tim,
I don’t consider you dishonorable. That is, to a large degree, a matter of personal morality. I’ve known some criminals who were honorable in their own fashion, so it’s not like I consider it a virtue that stands on its own anyway. (note to the careless reader-I’m not calling Tim a criminal either).
That said, I personally could not in good faith vote down a person because they simply espouse perfectly legitimate political views that happen to be contrary to my own (I’m not talking about someone who believes that Jews control the media or that the Rapture is coming next week). The reason the Hollywood Blacklist was wrong isn’t because the people who got blacklisted weren’t Stalinist sympathizers–at least a few were–it was because it’s wrong to do that to people in a free society.
For the vast majority of our history the only reason people were denied a place on the Supreme Court was because they were deemed not qualified and that’s the standard I would use. It has the benefit of my not having to explain why it would be wrong to vote down MY candidates when I was so willing to do the same to THEIR candidates.
I think it’s a slippery slope–if we accept that qualified people should be denied a spot on the court because of partisan politics, where so we draw the line? Why would denying a college professor tenure for belonging to the “wrong” party be any worse?
So, in summery, I think that those Republicans who put aside their differences with the very liberal Judge Ginsberg and voted her in by a wide margin acted far more honorably than those who voted against Roberts, knowing that he was absolutely well suited to the job. But that’s just my view. At any rate, those days are gone and the next time a Republican senate torpedoes a perfectly fine candidate for the Court for the crime of having the same views as those of the Democratic President who nominated them, both of us will view it negatively, albeit for different reasons.
Besides, if you want to be dismissive with lines like “Reality”, you’re not exactly on the high ground when others quote Republican activists who DO in fact explicitly ask for the litmus test Den describes and you mock.
Hmmm, my disagreement with Den had nothing to do with republican activists. Since my point was that the current environment has allowed everyone to start acting this way it comes as no surprise to me that people are, well, acting this way. The point that Den was making was that, quote, Republicans have already followed suit and in fact, have been calling for a “litmus test” on SC nominees since the days of Reagan. I had said that Senate Republicans would begin to apply the same kind of litmus tests that Democrats were now explicitly talking about. If Den was correct that this had already happened how exactly did Justice Ginsberg get that 96 to 3 vote? Sorry, I think I’m on pretty solid ground here. No litmus test was applied to Ginsberg and Breyer.
I do not expect that to be the case in the future. I would not even be sure that a Ginsberg would be approved in today’s senate and were there a Democratic President in office I rather doubt that she would even be offered up. Yeah, I see that as a poisoning of the process.
Doesn’t matter that she’s not a judge. Doesn’t matter that she has no record to speak of (indeed, that’s a plus.)
It’s worth pointing out in this context that she has the same judicial experience (and therefore record) prior to her appointment as Joseph Story, John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Earl Warren, Salmon P. Chase, Felix Frankfurter, and Byron White. Combined, since it’s fun to play with the number zero.
No experience, no clear-cut legal opinions, no real signs of brilliance (legal or otherwise). Roberts didn’t thrill me, but he certainly showed ample evidence of intelligence and even thoughtfulness. Miers has shown neither — her only dominant attribute is unflinching loyalty to Bush.
I partially agree with this, not because I think she’s unintelligent, but because I lack information one way or the other.
I am curious why there’s been such a knee-jerk “She’s not qualified” response. Is it because she was never an appellate judge before her appointment? That didn’t seem to stop Rehnquist or Marshall. Was it because she went to SMU instead of an Ivy League or Stanford law school? Robert Jackson didn’t even graduate from college, but served 13 years on the Supreme Court (with one extended vacation in Nuremberg). We seem to be taking a sort of Potter Stewart “I know it when I see it” approach to judicial qualifications, which I find somewhat unsatisfactory.
I am curious why there’s been such a knee-jerk “She’s not qualified” response. Is it because she was never an appellate judge before her appointment?
No judicial experience OR constitutional law experience OR high level administrative experience OR record of rigourous analytic legal thinking.
Take one of the above (or, preferably more than one), and I wouldn’t have think she’s unqualified. The lack of ANYTHING…is a lack of qualifications.
It’s not so much what she hasn’t done as what she has that has my attention.
Since Dubya became Governor of Texas, she’s been working for him, including one amazing stretch of state residency in order to keep Cheney as the VP. Since Dubya reached the White House, she’s been by his side as consistently as Laura.
This does not bespeak independent jurisprudence to me…
David, for me, it’s her utter lack of any of the qualifications prior justices without judical experience have had, combined with her close association with the current president. Just about every justice that has sat the court in the past has had some indication that they were capable of administering the law at the highest level. Ivy League schools, back when they meant something, top of their class. Nationally significant, recognized legal figures. Top, respected legal minds. Figures of national prominence that played roles in key cases of national import. Governors, legislators. This is the past of the SCOTUS, and this is the bar that any candidate is held up against. Miers not only is totally lacking when compared to the history and the present of the justices that have served, but she also has close professional, political, and personal ties to the sitting president. There’s every chance that, once appointed, Miers will succomb to the responsibility of the position, leave all her ties and obligations in her chambers, and sit the bench in the tradition of previous justices. There’s also a significant risk that she’s already pre-decided her position on several key matters of national significance, and that she’s informed the president of how she intends to rule on those cases, when they come before her.
The combination of those 2 aspects of this nomination exemplify why the Constitution requires the consent of the Senate, the very reason why the founders put in a system of checks and balances.
As for Roberts’ confirmation, I’m certain that some votes against him were petty partisan bickering. But I’m just as certain that many of them were intended to send a message to the president. I don’t think Roberts confirmation was ever in doubt, so a “no” vote against him was bound to be ineffective. However, by amassing a large number of “no” votes, the Senate sent a message to the president that he wasn’t going to be able to nominate just any old stooge to the court. Which message, it seems, was either missed, or Bush has decided to test the Senate. In this case, I hope they demonstrate just how little power the office of the President has in this case.
Bill,
I don’t consider you dishonorable. That is, to a large degree, a matter of personal morality. I’ve known some criminals who were honorable in their own fashion, so it’s not like I consider it a virtue that stands on its own anyway.
Um … thanks, I think.
I think I’ve got to question your whole premise here. If a vote against a nominee is somehow considered “poisoning the process”, doesn’t that logically imply that you think every nominee should pass unanimously? If so, what the heck is the point of Senators even having independent judgements and opinions?
As a (hypothetical) Senator, part of my job is to reflect the wishes and opinions of my constituency — and if a large fraction of my constituency has a strong opposition to the nominee, then I think that does more harm to the process than a simple “no” vote does.
Do you think Ashcroft should have been confirmed 100-0? Gonzalez? Rice? Bolton? Clarence Thomas? If not, what makes the votes against them fine and the votes against Roberts “poisoning the process”?
(For that matter, do you also think the 3 Republicans who voted against Ginsburg were as venomous as these 22 Democrats who voted against Roberts?)
Hypothetically, suppose Rice were to step down as Secretary of State and Bush were to name … oh, Ann Coulter. Should the Senate just go ahead and respect Bush’s wishes on that?
Basically, I’m rather confused about what your position is about Senate confirmation votes and at what point a vote against a nominee is okay vs. “poisonous.”
That said, I personally could not in good faith vote down a person because they simply espouse perfectly legitimate political views that happen to be contrary to my own
Two points:
1) “vote down” and “vote against” are not synonymous. As Bobb’s pointed out, it was an absolute gimme that Roberts was going to get confirmed, so the vote against was not going to be a serious threat.
2) This implies that in the event of, say, a liberal Democrat holding the White House and a Senate that was skewing 80-20 Republican, you’d expect every reasonably qualified nominee to be confirmed without incident. If that’s legitimate … well, full marks for idealism, but I can’t see it ever happening, be it in this era or in some bygone one.
The reason the Hollywood Blacklist was wrong isn’t because the people who got blacklisted weren’t Stalinist sympathizers–at least a few were–it was because it’s wrong to do that to people in a free society.
I agree, but I don’t see the validity of the analogy. Nobody’s talking about a blacklist here or anything close.
I think it’s a slippery slope–if we accept that qualified people should be denied a spot on the court because of partisan politics, where so we draw the line?
A valid question. I hate to get into schoolyard tactics here, but I think the question is just as legitimately asked to the Republican senators who blocked dozens of Clinton judicial nominees with obvious qualifications.
I think we see votes in different lights. I see a vote as something expressing the individual’s honest opinion — and if Senator X disagrees so strongly with a nominee’s opinion that he/she considers them questionable for the court, that is X’s prerogative. You’re phrasing your statements such that every vote is nothing other than partisan bickering. Isn’t there room for someone to come to a principled conclusion that someone is wrong for the position for reasons other than “not qualified”?
I would also take issue with your characterization of Ginsburg as a “very liberal judge”. I don’t think we’ve had a truly liberal judge — the political opposite of Antonin Scalia, say — on the Court in my lifetime. She’s left of center, yes — but not hard-left to the extent that Scalia and Thomas are hard-right.
Hmmm, my disagreement with Den had nothing to do with republican activists.
Unfortunately, Den’s original point *did* include them, which makes this ring a bit hollow. People call for litmus tests all the time. Even leaving aside pundits like Buchanan, Coulter, etc., what about Tom Coburn? Orrin Hatch?
Sam Brownback has already come out and said he’s having difficulty supporting Harriet Miers because his conversations with her show her to be insufficiently committed to overturning Roe v Wade. What on Earth is that if not a litmus test?
Your point doesn’t really invalidate Den’s. Republicans can be and have been *calling* for litmus tests for as far back as the Reagan era. Whether specific senators have answered that call is a separate question.
I would also like you to name a Democrat who has explicitly spoken of a litmus test, since I don’t personally know of one. A referenced quote would be helpful.
TWL
Whoops. The first statement above about the Hollywood blacklist was Bill’s, not mine, and I apparently forgot to italicize it. My bad.
On a different note, though — does hearing the recurring litany of “she’s had as much experience as Rehnquist did!” about Miers remind anyone else of Dan Quayle’s (in)famous comparison to JFK in the 1992 campaign and debate?
TWL (is no Jack Kennedy)
“If Den was correct that this had already happened how exactly did Justice Ginsberg get that 96 to 3 vote?”
Simple: because Bill Clinton consulted with Senate Republicans before formally naming her as his nominee. In other words, she passed the GOP’s litmus test before her name was even floated publically, thus ensuring a smooth and uneventful appointment.
–R.J.
Sasha: One really interesting question I’ve heard come up is who has the burden of proof? Or more saliently, does the nominee and President have the burden to show why someone should be confirmed, or does the Senate have the burden of showing why someone shouldn’t be confirmed? I don’t mind allowing the President some leewau in civilian appointments (because incompetent appointees can always be removed from their positions), but with a lifetime appointment, the onus definitely lies with the President.
Thomas Jefferson on “advice and consent”: