Supreme Court: Would you rather have an unqualified justice with a

[mondo joe]

very poor sense of constitutional law who might agree with you on at least some issues...

or

A qualified constitutional scholar who disagrees with you on most issues?


(This question assumes it is possible for knowledgeable people to disagree on constitutional issues, and assumes the seated President would not select a justice who would agree with DUers most of the time.)

[mondo joe]

1. Answering my own poll: I've felt very conflicted about this.

Of course this is in reference to the Miers nomination. I can't imagine, if I were in a position to do so, vooting in favor of Miers. Even at the risk of getting someone possibly worse on issues, but better qualified.

I somehow feel I'd rather have someone who disagrees with me but can posit a substantive argument, to an idiot who might agree with me on a few more issues.

Maybe I'm being too short sighted.

[Pirate Smile]

2. This question, which is a very real question facing us right now

gives me a horrendous headache.

Owwwww.

[adwon]

3. Hrm

I don't get all the qualifications hoopla. Honestly, if she made it past 1L, she's as qualified as anybody but Cardozo or Hand. Yes, the issues can get complicated, but anyone willing to spend a little time can understand them and make a decision.

Edit: I do realize that Hand wasn't on the Court. He was extremely qualified, though.

[iamjoy]

4. Two Interesting Cases Recently

Where I agreed with the "Conservative" Justices, not the Liberal (and I think most people here would agree):

1) Eminent Domain: The Liberals said the Fifth Amendment meant the state could allow private enterprise could force you to sell them your house for their purposes (if it would serve the community). The Conservatives disagreed, taking a firmer stance on protecting private property.

2) Medical Marijuana: The Conservatives said it was an issue the states could regulate. The Liberals said marijuana was a controlled substance, therefore it was up to Congress to do something about it.

Funny think in both cases, both sides had good legal and Constitutional justifications for their opinion. But, you have some one who isn't a good scholar and how can they make a good ruling? They're just going to decide whatever their buddy or whomever tells them to rule.

[Coastie for Truth]

7. I liked Pennsylvania Chief Justice Papadakos

who had been an eminent domain specialist as a working lawyer (McKeesport PA Redevelopment Authority) and had a "Powerball Lottery" theory of Eminent Domain - to go along with Governor Milt Shapp's "Powerball Lottery" theory-

If the state is going to take your property to benefit a private developer - you are holding the winning Powerball Lottery ticket --- and the award was based on the value of the property to the developer as a developed shopping center or whatever -- plus relocation, dislocation, etc.

[Snotcicles]

5. I think all appointments should be suspended until we find out if the

people doing the appointing are uncorrupted and can make legitimate appointments, not install party cronies for future corruption.

[MrModerate]

6. But we don't have a clue WHAT Miers believes in . . .

She's such a f*cking tool, and apparently waiting around for the rapture -- and therefore capable of deciding any which way.

Which means that Scalia will have to "take her under his wing," and tell her what to think. That's one pattern we can divine from her record, anyway -- her tendency to let men she considers "powerful" serve as her conscience.

At least I hope Roberts is smart enough to give her the budget for twice as many clerks as any of the other justices, because she's going to need 'em to write her opinions for her.