Harriet Miers: A Rant From a Lawyer...

[huskerlaw]

I cannot even begin to explain how pissed off I am. I'm an attorney. I am in no way qualified to be a judge...any sort of judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice!

There is a huge difference between arguing one side of the law and knowing how to apply the whole thing. That's why, in the real world (aka, one not run by BushCo), lawyers turned judges start out in traffic court. And I've spoken to many judges about the transition. They've all very openly talked about how unqualified they felt to make judicially sound decisions in TRAFFIC COURT! The learning curve is unbelievably steep. There are so many aspects to a judicial decision (even the most inconsequential ones) that even I don't comprehend.

In my opinion, nominating someone who has never been a judge to the Supreme Court is, well, as irresponsible as hiring the head of the Arabian Horse Association to run FEMA, or electing the Governor of Texas to be President.

I was against John Roberts for this very reason (among others). 2 years isn't enough experience either. We've seen what happens when Bush appoints people with little or no experience. Yes, we are fucked. Even if they're both moderate (and I think we can safely assume that Roberts, at least, won't be), expect some piss-poor legal reasoning that will affect our legal system for years, if not decades to come. Their inexperience will affect not only the big ticket cases (abortion, first amendment, etc.), but also those little cases that nobody pays much attention to, but that shape our legal system, and in turn affect each and every one of us.

I'm so pissed off I can barely form coherent sentences, but there ya go.

[WCGreen]

1. Well they way the elected Judges in my State, they just have

to have 6 years of legal experience....

Doesn't say what constitutes experience, just six years of it...

No we have elected some god awful judges here, based mainly on ethnicity, gender, race and political contacts....

Being a judge is one of the most important jobs in our society, and yet, the requirements are so poorly stated that literally anyone who can make it through Law School is a fair candidate for the position...

BTW, I don't even think you have to be an attorney to qualify for the Supreme Court..

[huskerlaw]

3. Yeah, technically she meets the qualifications

but leave it to Bush to be satisfied with someone who merely meets, rather than exceeds the qualifications.

I mean, look at Clinton's appointees. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a judge on the DC Court of Appeals for 13 years before Clinton nominated her.
Breyer was a judge on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals for 14 years.

That's how it's supposed to work.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. There have been non-lawyers appointed to SCOTUS.

There are no minimum qualifications for the job. Your high school janitor could be SCOTUS if he did coke with Bush.

[huskerlaw]

9. That wouldn't surprise me either...

but the thing is, the qualifications (or lack thereof) date back to a time when law schools didn't exist and you could read every single decision ever written in the US in a few months. You could educate yourself to be a lawyer, Abraham Lincoln-style.

Obviously, times have changed. Clinton got that. He nominated people with actual experience. The fact that BOTH of Bush's nominees are no more qualified than I am shows how completely clueless his is. But then, he's not a lawyer either.

This is a sore spot for me, I admit. I even prefer that Presidents are lawyers. IMO, if you're going to sign laws, you should probably know how they work. But I digress.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. I completely understand your point.

And I agree too.

Alls I'm saying is to not expect that to be a true point of contention. It's not an argument that'll hold water in blocking the nomination.

[huskerlaw]

14. I completely agree

it won't stop the nomination at all. It didn't even come up with Roberts and he's really no more qualified than she is. I'm just ranting.

[WCGreen]

10. I know that....

This bastard does everything for political gain...

Not that there is anything wrong with that, all presidents do, but this clown has gone way over the top with the political cronyism and our country will pay dearly for his lack of vision....

[OldLeftieLawyer]

2. It's exactly who I expected from Fuckface

At this point, they have no shame, and their desperation to pack the court with unqualified ideologues is naked.

I don't think Rehnquist had any judicial experience when he was appointed. Neither did Earl Warren. I think. But, neithe was the patent political hack this woman is.

So, now it's time for Democrats to filibuster the shit out of this one until she dies of old age.

Nuclear option, my ass. The Democrats gave it away on those circuit court nominees, and now they've got to figure out a way to extricate themselves from that asshole deal they made with Frist (who was smarter than all of them).

Now is the time for Democrats to beg, borrow, or steal backbones - the idea of any of them growing his or her own is far too much to expect.

[huskerlaw]

4. I can't say I'm horribly shocked either

just pissed off, which is my natural state of being whenever Bush is even mentioned.

I hope to God that the Dems filibuster the shit out of the nomination. Unfortunately, I've all but lost faith that they'll actually do it.

[barb162]

5. And they will use Rehnquist and Warren as their excuses

if the Democrats dare open their mouths about the um, "experience" card.

[LynneSin]

6. Judges are like US Senators

They have 'histories' whether how they voted in the Senate or how they have judged certain cases. Therefore in a million years the Bush Regime KNOWs that appointing a qualified judge means that every case they have heard can and will be used against them.

[huskerlaw]

13. This is true

although, the "history" doesn't necessarily mean much. It's hard to tell what they'll do when they're insulated from political repercussions by a lifetime appointment.

Take, for example, Poppy Bush's appointment of Souter. He became a judge in 1978. He became a Supreme Court justice in 1990. I don't think they expected him to be quite as liberal as he is...

As for using history against the nominee, if the Dems had a spine, I would agree. But they've shown no signs that they'd battle someone with an unfavorable history. Particularly given the way they let Roberts get away with "I don't want to address that" answers.

[LynneSin]

17. Don't use the Roberts confirmation as what the Dems will do for Miers

Dems knew they could get away with one major battle for a supreme court justice. Roberts really is a wash since he's replacing someone who was radically far to the right. Best that we save it for the O'Conners replacement.

If we went full-barrel against Roberts, the repukes would have brought out the nuclear option and all that other crap and even then we might have lost the nomination if we didn't have the filibuster covered. And if we used all our ammunition up with Roberts then we'd have nothing for this one.

No, dems actually have a strategy (I'm hoping) and that was to save all their ammunition for the O'Connors replacement. Now they can go back and say that they gave Bush Roberts and that we have the right to ask for a more moderate and suitable selection for O'Conners seat.

Let's hope that's the case, it was the impression I got once we knew 2 seats were open!

[huskerlaw]

18. I hope you're right.

And I totally see your point. I agree that would be a good strategy, and probably the Dems best course of action.

However, in the last 5 years, I just haven't seen anything that makes me all that confident that they'll stand up on this one either.

I honest-to-God hope that you're right though.

[LynneSin]

19. I'm hoping and praying I'm right too

but I completely what you're saying too.

:scared:

[Fridays Child]

7. Well, you know that this just royally pisses off Candy Crowley.

She was so sure that she'd finally be invited to the dance, after all these years. :bounce:

[Lex]

11. Her non-qualifications aside, I can't believe he nominiated his OWN lawyer

because most Presidents would want to avoid even the appearance of cronyism or impropriety or self-dealing.

We are talking about the US Supreme Court here!

Bush? He doesn't give a sh*t.

Signed,
*Another Mad Attorney*

[huskerlaw]

15. I haven't even allowed myself to go there yet

I agree, the fact that he nominated HIS OWN LAWYER is above and beyond what any normal person would consider proper.

But yes, Bush doesn't give a flying fuck. And why should he? Nobody's ever stopped him.

[GOPisEvil]

16. Clearly being Bush's counsel is the key to promotions.

Ask Alberto Gonzales.