Harriet Miers - On The US Supreme Court?!?!?
I have given a lot of thought as to what I think of the nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court.And the more I think of it, the less that comes to my mind to say...
There just isn't a lot of passion in me about her nomination. And therein lies the problem.
It seems like very few people are excited about this nomination. Republicans don't like her because she doesn't seem to be conservative enough (based on her democratic and pro-choice past) and Democrats don't like her (based on her republican present!)
What is this woman gonna do? She cant win on either side of the aisle...
What do I think of her personally? She seems like a nice woman from what I have read about her. But Bush really is a nice guy (I have met him several times) but I don't think he makes a good President...so.....
Hmmmm...again nothing comes to mind - she is a complete neutral in my book - she could go either way.
No one will ever take away from Harriet Miers that she is an accomplished attorney. She has distinguished herself in that area to a certain degree but is she REALLY the most qualified candidate and best candidate out there?
I do like the fact that she is a woman - I personally would like to see a woman replace Sandra Day O'Connor...but...
4 Comments:
At 9:58 PM,
Anonymous said…
She has no judicial experience. That alone, one would think, would disqualify her as a candidate.
Perhaps she does have Constitutional "expertise," but politics aside, I personally believe the nominee should have the experience to back it up. The job of the judge is to be unbiased, and the job of the attorney is to be utterly biased. She's never been a judge.
Roberts didn't spend much time on the bench, and I don't like his elusiveness about EVERYTHING (or his conservative seeming past), but he was a better choice than Miers by his resume alone.
My guess is that this is Bush - again - nominating a bogus choice in spite of the critics because he can.
At 2:19 PM,
M said…
Gock ---
I actually never said that having no judicial experience was wrong or a reason to invalidate her nomination.
What I asked was the simple question of: Is she really the most qualified candidate to chooose?
As far as legal/judicial resumes, it is easy to answer - the answer is quite clearly that she is NOT the most qualified.
Obviously sitting on a bench is not a requirement...chief justices in the past have not always sat on the bench prior to being nominated.
And as to her political affiliation..the republicans sure are spending a LOT of time touting her as a true right side conservative for a woman who has NO political bias....hmmmmm...
My point is this:
The supreme court is definately not a popularity contest. It is not a place where you place someone because of loyalty, nepotism, cronyism, or any other presonal reason to reward loyalty. Justices on the supreme court have to be extremely qualified in the judicial arena b/c they are ruling many times on obscure points of law, citing obscure court cases that only a supreme court justice would know. Simply being able to cut through the "bullshit" does not make one qualified for the US Supreme Court. Remember these are LIFETIME nominations - there are no take backs and re-dos...that is why the nominations are so important.
Now obviously, Ms. Miers is an accomplished attorney from her days in Texas, and she did oversee the Texas Lottery Commission....
but...
I am still not convinced that this qualifies her for one of the TOP judicial places in our country.
At 12:16 AM,
Anonymous said…
Harriet Miers...blah,blah,blah....Supreme Court....yada yada yada....
Let's get back to me... ; -)
At 6:46 PM,
Nettie said…
I haven't really made up my mind about her...We'll have to see who cares enoguh to get her nominated or rejected.
Post a Comment
<< Home