Redstate

Live now, on C-Span 1.  He just gave a 5-point explanation of his choice and is answering other questions now.

Seems like an excellent spot for Senator McCain to take on the President here, and shore up his social conservative credentials. A good senator and a good man, McCain has shown his loyalty by supporting the President on Iraq, and already has good credibility on fiscal conservatism, which has evidently eluded this administration. The only nagging question about McCain has been whether he is comfortable with the cultural conservatives that are so crucial in the presidential primaries. By recommending judges in the Roberts/Luttig/Estrada/Jones mold, he could demonstrate a commitment to highly qualified conservative judges who aren't cronies.

If he gets out in front of this, he may have enough juice to stop this nomination, and earn the gratitude of the rank-and-file faithful. Dare he take on the President in such a forceful way? And if McCain doesn't, will one of the others (Allen, Brownback) be willing?

I think we got to give Dubya the benafit of the doubt here.  He has known this woman personally for a long time.  I think he knows her convictions.  We also know that the SCOTUS was the most important thing to him in the 2000 election and continues to be.  He saw a chance to stick it to Harry Reid and he is going to use it.  Dubya has always stood up for what he believes in whether it's popular or not.  He is a man that is concerned with what is the right thing to do.  Not what the path of least resistance is.  The Poll Watcher left office in 2000.  Remember?

She is going to be a good pick.  Any internal fighting over this is going to hurt bad in the mid-term elections.  We need McCain to do what is almost impossible for him.  Keep his mouth shut.

His (and to some extent the Republican party's) short term standing and long term legacy will be completely tied to Harriet Miers.  If she votes correctly in the Solomon Amendment case and Ayotte (among others) this term, he'll regain some trust and maybe even a little inspiration for the base going into midterms.  If she votes the wrong way in either case, he's completely toast and the Republican party will suffer in midterm elections.  

Long term, his legacy will be forever tied to Harriet Miers.  Because we know NOTHING about her and are only supposed to take her views on trust for Bush, however she votes for the next 20 years will have to be directly attributable to him.  Unless she is AT LEAST as conservative as Thomas, Scalia, this will not be good for his legacy.  Had he picked a Luttig, Karen Williams, etc., and had they voted the "wrong" way in some cases, no one could have fairly faulted Bush for that (unlike Souter who was a similar unknown quantity if not w/ big warning signs all over him).  But since only he knows Miers, any vote she casts must be directly attributed to him, good or bad.  

The first is how she would rule on the issues of concern to all of us.  We don't know, but everyone is trying to read the tea leaves.  This is where your faith in Pres Bush comes into play -- how well does he know her, etc.

The second is whether she is qualified to be an Associate Justice of the SCOTUS.  The short answer is that she isn't.

My POV is that even if rules the "right" way on every issue, she is not qualified.  The President has set an awful precedent for the future (remember, there will be a Democrat back in the White House some day).  If you care about the Court as an institution and not just as a means to an end, this is a horrible selection.

but is anyone else tired - and perhaps tired is not the best characterization; weariness might be preferable - of the entire "Trust Bush, trust me." meme?  Are we engaged in a political exchange or are we involved in a bizarre religion or cult of personality?

Forget trust.  Show me.

Interesting article here basically pointing out that Bush knows this lady and knows what he is getting and that she has done some pretty good things.

Lots of advantages to Miers.

Did well in the news conference. We was on his game. It will never be his specialty, but he showed some command.

Anybody else see it?

Because there's a  big difference between "Trust Bush" and "Don't fly off the handle condemning him and his pick before the facts are in."

For what it's worth, even Justice Rehnquist mentioned the fact that going to Stanford in the 50s was a matter of money, as almost everyone who applied got in.  Stanford in 1950 was not Stanford in 2005.

last night that White House strategists were saying the base would be angry over this nomination, but would fall in line within 48 hours. And yes, this is turning into a George Bush, Koolaid drinking, cult of personality love fest. How many time must we be screwed by someone named Bush? We conservatives deserve everytihng we get for our blind loyalties.

between condemning a pick before the facts are in and condemning the fact that we've been handed a stealth candidate, with which we have been singularly unlucky over the years.

And, moreover, there is a world of difference between a promise to give us justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas and this unknown, stealth candidate on the Dem's list of acceptable nominees.

In other words, we were promised a known quantity and she isn't it.  Trust doesn't cut it when SCOTUS nominations are the one thing conservatives have left to tether them to this adminstration.

I think this is another return of the "Ginsburg" principle.  Bush was clear that we WERE getting a Scalia/Thomas (in philosophy, I mean).  So, he consulted with Reid, as Clinton consulted with Hatch.  He's got a solid conservative who will get by the Democrats.

Come on now, she's the person who brought us JRB, Pryor, etc.  Bush's appellate court picks have been fantastic.  Why would be believe that he somehow totally lost all focus on the court that he ran on?

I admit that my initial reaction was similar, I was concerned about this pick.  But after studying it, I DO like having an outsider.

there have been plenty of mediocrities on the Supreme Court.  In fact, O'Connor was one of them.  And the nation has survived.

I'd rather have someone who will vote in a way that benefits the country, rather than who votes the wrong way does so with more florid prose.

Of course, my first choice is someone who votes the right way and is an intellectual powerhouse.  But Bush didn't give us one of those, so we have to hang our hats on the former.

A post I'm chewing on for later today. I promise.

Great Article.  Let's chill out for a while and see what other info turns up on her, and then make a decision whether to support or oppose.  

Bush hasn't done badly by conservatives.  The constant, full volume rage from the Left against him is proof enough of that.

Though I think this nomination was a mistake, I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.  After all, he's known this woman personally for a number of years.  I seriously doubt he would intentionally sell out conservatives.

"How many time must we be screwed by someone named Bush?"

Two roblems with this line:

1. It ignores this President's excellent track record with respect to judicial appointments.
   
2. It falls aparet if people don't act exactly like their fathers.

on any of the questions of real importance (abortion, affirmative action, etc) we have to trust Bush, because none of the candidates are going to answer directly on what they believe. With appellate court judges we get some idea from past rulings, but that is no guarantee once they are on SCOTUS.

I was really disappointed in this pick initially, but the more I've had time to reflect, I do trust Bush. He is socially conservative and I don't think would appoint someone he has known for years - who you know he has had discussions with her on all the important issues throughout the nomination process of the other nominees - who does not agree with him on the issues of importance.

I think ultimately Miers is the choice that Bush himself could trust the most.

between circuit court appointments and this.  It's very easy to dole out a number of circuit appointments to keep a variety of folks happy.  That can be a purely political calculation.  But when the rubber meets the road, you gotta do beter than this.

I watched the entire press conference and the President was flat, look tired, and acted irritated.  Short of the first comments concerning Miers, the President did little to assuage any fears beyond "Harriet Miers is a woman of character and intellect.  I know her philosophy."  Fine, back to "trust me."

The worst moment was with the second or third question, when the President was asked about the concerns of social conservatives.  The President looked miffed that the question was asked -- and then he rehashes the four or five qualities that led to his selection of Miers.  "I know her philosophy."  Fine, back to "trust me."

If the President really wanted to answer the concerns of the base, he could have done so forcefully.  He did not.  While I'll wait to hear more, the Presidents pick is less than inspirational.

this so called conservative movement is in need of a serious makeover. Where is the Fab Five? More Koolaid folks?

Bush was smart enough to beat both of them, thank God. If I were a pro-abortionist I would be scared to death of this pick because Bush knows where she is and the Dims can't find out.

Beware of making journalism into history. As for the historical effect of Ms. Miers, keep in mind she may well be only 1 of 3 picks for the POTUS. Also keep in mind that "mediocre" or "average" or "indistinguished" justices typically recede into the background of the glow cast by their more stellar colleagues.

It's only recently that the phenomena of "growing" or "evolving" on the bench has turned into an epidemic (Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, and far worse, Souter and Kennedy).

If the Roberts pick succeeds, which I think it will by the new chief exerting his persuasive powers in an almost invisible fashion, it will make Scalia appear even stronger, Thomas appear even bolder, and Kennedy and Souter appear more conservative. I think Roberts will have a gravitational effect on the court.

Miers will fit into that field easily.

Then - W gets another pick, and if that pick is another Roberts (proven academic, strong judicial experience) then the court is set for a generation.

If W muffs that pick, or doesn't get it, I still hold that Roberts will pull the court steadily in his direction, without noticeably doing so - no dramatic trailblazing opinions, no bold departures into new areas - simply adjusting and pruning all the harm that's been done in the past 50 years from the bench. It's all about modesty.

I don't think Miers will have that effect, and I doubt we'll consider her as anything extraordinary, for either good or ill, in a few years. She'll be another justice, probably in the category that the vast majority of americans won't be able to recall if asked to name a sitting justice.

and not pretending to be one i any comboxes, I will state what I have stated in a diary already: I have a litmus test, which asks whether a prospective nominee is an originalist, and whether that nominee truly understands what that commitment entails, and that because, in the age of the super-legislative, politicized judiciary, a nominees' philosophical commitments correlate with outcomes.  An alleged originalist who did not vote against ROE would have to have an extremely esoteric conception of originalism...

not that I'm listened to much around here, but for what it's worth, I could care less about whether she has ever been a judge before.  What was the stat? 11 out of the last 35 (or whatever it was) had never been judges before...including Rehnquist?  I can give W the benefit of the doubt here...in fact, my koolaid is still open to this being a softball that sets up the Dems in advance of Stevens...maybe W already knows what none of us could possibly know...that Stevens is waiting for O'Connor to be replaced before he resigns/retires...

Then, when he picks one of your collective favorites out there, the Dems will look stupid if they put up the hissy fit they promised if they didn't like THIS pick...I'm game for that.  

As to the other comments, I too think Bush has done "ok" by us...I remember a Texas Governor who ran for president in 2000 that sounded an awful lot like a burgeoning isolationist in sheep's clothing that wanted to spend all his time dealing with domestic issues...until 9/11.  His tenure has been ill-timed for what he had hoped to do.  I deeply admire this man and my only anti-Prez comments are that he's allowed himself to get talked into spending that he would never have done if it weren't for his failed attempt to change the tone to one of bipartisanship and camaraderie.  Bad idea...bad strategies used...bad results...

I hated the farm bill, the education bill, the airline bill, the prescription drug bill, AND the energy bill.  Roberts doesn't make up for that.  Miers won't.  None of the SCOTUS issues will.  I trust George on his reasons for Miers.  I can only look forward to his replacement to fix the spending mess he got roped into.

Comparing your opponents with members of a suicide cult for merely saying this President deserves the benefit of the doubt on judges, is not going  to win anyone to your side.

In fact I think it has a decent chance of turning people against you, the more you sound like a writer for the New York Times.

"she's the person who brought us JRB, Pryor, etc."

She's about as much as "the person" who did this as Al Gore was "the person" to bring us the internet.  At best, she was part of a team.  At worst, she had little or no substantive input.  based on her record of mediocrity, I'm betting on the latter.  

the SC sets the precedents, the lower courts follow them...you could fill the lower courts with nothing but conservatives and it wouldn't do any good if the 9 above them are all liberal.

is that conservatives (like me) will hold him (and to some extent the Republican party) accountable for her votes, not that every media report will note her vote and connect it to Bush.  But if she turns out to be a Kennedy, for instance (I don't think a Souter is a possibility), I will have a hard time convincing myself to bust my butt for Republicans on the judges issue if this is what we get.  

And as for a third pick, I simply don't get why anyone thinks that's a realistic possibility.  Ginsburg and Stevens are as partisan as they come.  Stevens is the older of the two and seems to be in perfect health.  They must know Bush is weak right now and this pick proves it, and the Dems chances of taking back the White House and Senate are decent right now.  Unless either of them dies (which I wouldn't hope for no matter what), I think the chance of a third vacancy is less than 5%.  I just don't see either stepping down. It's incredibly wishful thinking to believe otherwise.  

I have been coming to this site for a little while because I was interested in seeing what other people of like mind had to say about the courts. What I have found is that if you don't agree with the President 100% of the time, or horrors, you may even be critical, people start accusing you of being a plant for the nuts at Kos. Or now, a writer for the NYT. So let me state this as best I can. The only Democrat I have ever voted for was Phil Gramm, in 1980. The first vote I ever cast was for Ronald Reagan, again in 1980. I am neither a liberal, nor a Republican party hack. I am a conservative. And I am not trying to win anyone, but pointing out that I had read the White House strategists knew ther would be a backlash but said it would subside in about 48 hours. They were right.

You don't have to like the pick, but saying she has a "record of mediocrity" is silly. When being a woman lawyer was not easy, she rose to the top of her profession.

Students in law schools across the country would kill to have a career like Harriet Miers.

The biggest nagging thing about McCain bears his name, McCain-Feingold, aka BCRA, aka demolishing the 1st amendment.

How can we just lower our standards for the sake of "trusting Bush?"  That is the worst argument I have ever heard!  This is to much of a big thing to mess around with.  There is no excuse for such an unqualified nominee.  Bush sold us out.

"based on her record of mediocrity, I'm betting on the latter."

What record of mediocrity?  She was President of the Texas Bar..she was the head of a major law firm, and rose to become White House Counsel...

...can you support your assertion?

I like that this nomination has shut up the likes of Schumer and Kennedy.

who might be a plant for whom...

We don't assume you're a liberal for disagreeing with the President.

It's the manner in which you disagree with him that gives hints about your thoughts.

And maybe it's just me, but this "flavor aid" stuff sounds like it belongs better in a Maureen Dowd column, than at Red State.

that Bush is most comfortable with people he has worked with before.  So the pick is not really a surprise on that level.  In hindsight, the point person on his vetting should have been in the discussion mix-see Cheney and the VP search.

I think his preference always was AGAG-he fits the definition, and would have added the "diversity".  But the base howled so much, he dropped back to another member of the same team who had not been attacked.  

The AG has to be the favorite to take Stevens slot when it opens, and will be another incremental shift to the right for the court.

She was President of the Texas Bar:  and that qualifies you to be on the SCt how?  It is a political deal.  I vote every year for the new president and do not know (or care) who it is.  It is meaningless.  

She was the head of a major law firm:  First, that firm is far from a "major" law firm.  Second, that qualifies you to be on the SCt how? Again, it's a political position (only the politics are firm-related).  

She rose to become WH counsel:  A powerhouse lawyer does not take a job as the President's staff secretary.  She got promoted because she's a Bushie.  Fine, don't care if the position is WH counsel.  But she's going to be on the SCt for life -- how does being a Bush confidant qualify her for that?  

"Can you support your assertion?"  Yeah.  Look at her law school.  Look at her firm.  Look for one major case of significance that she handled as lead counsel during her time in private practice.  

Let's hope that the Bush - Miers relationship doesn't become a Henry II and Thomas a Becket like fiasco.

"A powerhouse lawyer does not take a job as the President's staff secretary.  She got promoted because she's a Bushie."

Thank you for clearly defining the debate here...I would say some would and others would not...she still rose to the position of White House Counsel, which is arguably one of the most important legal positions in the nation.

"Look at her law school.  Look at her firm."

Ah, so if they didn't attend Yale or Harvard, they shouldn't get to play ball?

As for her firm, again, it was, by what is being reported, a firm with 400 members...which makes it not an insignificant law firm.

What Constitutionally should disqualify her?

I'd like to know who would take the staff secretary gig who also could go into the SG's office or any number of other positions.

"she still rose to the position of White House Counsel, which is arguably one of the most important legal positions in the nation."  Because she's a Bushie and he trusts her.  That does not qualify her for the SCt.  

"Ah, so if they didn't attend Yale or Harvard, they shouldn't get to play ball?"  That's exactly what I said.  Thanks for playing.  There's a big difference between SMU and Harvard/Yale/any number of other law schools.

"As for her firm, again, it was, by what is being reported, a firm with 400 members...which makes it not an insignificant law firm."  Of course, bigger always means better.  It is a mediocre law firm, at best.  It is just not part of the conversation if you are talking about the really, really good law firms in this country.  

"What Constitutionally should disqualify her?"  As you know, nothing.  I wasn't aware that we were aiming simply to get over the bare minimum.  

Face it -- the reason this is such a poor pick may be that Miers simply picked herself. She is the White House General Counsel and runs the show for selecting SCT justices. OLP and OLC are shut out -- they both acknowledge that the selection process is run out of the White House.

If Miers picked herself and recommended her to Bush, who would oppose her? Certainly not her staff attorneys, given her reputation as a boss. And Bush, who is both loyal to friends and believes in delegating, probably wasn't one to controvert her, especially given that she was the one reviewing the applications. So, not only is Miers unqualified, she is ambitious and egotistical too -- overlooking much better qualified nominees to advance herself as the nominee.

I'm reminded of Roman Hruska, who in defending one of Nixon's more mediocre Supreme Court appointments, said something like "Mediocre people need representation too".

Of course, my first introduction to Senator Hruska was in the old Dr. Demento favorite, Dead Puppies, which has the line near the end "One more time for Roman Hruska!".

I don't really have a point here, I'm just having fun with obscure references.

"Because she's a Bushie and he trusts her. "

Can you prove that that was the only reason she rose to the position, or is it just your opinion?

"There's a big difference between SMU and Harvard/Yale/any number of other law schools."

At every school in the nation, there are those who excel above the rest...and arguably, the best of SMU may well rival the best at Harvard or Yale...

 "It is just not part of the conversation if you are talking about the really, really good law firms in this country."

Again, the point is that she rose to the top of that firm...can you provide proof that she would not have risen to the top in any of the "Big" firms?

We are not aiming at the minimum...but neither is this the SATs...from all appearances she is highly competent...and she appears to be in line with the President's political views....If you think that does not matter...then argue with the Founders...

You win, you nominate...period.

The standards for mediocrity expressed on this thread and others mean any lawyer who has never worked for the government or been an academic is, by definition, mediocre. That is an odd proposition for a conservative to advance I think. The fact is that Miers has advanced as far as possible for a private lawyer to advance in this country in her private career. This is mediocrity?

Drudge is hyping the latest Miers headline as pro-gay, but it looks more encouraging than most of the other stuff out there.  Don't read the story without looking at the actual questionnaire:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1112940,00.html

The "same civil rights" question (#1) is always answered the same by both conservatives and liberals - we just see civil rights/special rights differently.  I think "yes" is a legitimate answer, especially in light of her response to question #2 (re: sodomy laws).

Question #3: Does the city of Dallas have a responsibility to fund AIDS education and patient support?  That "yes" is questionable -- but that is in light of 8 years of Clintonization and 16 years of an ever-evolving pro-homosexual agenda.  But considering the atmosphere in 1989, maybe not so much.  She tiptoes around the funding increase part of the question, and the "total community problem" statement can be read into differently.

Question #4 is another good tiptoe (discrimination).

Question #5 is a stock conservative answer (employer discrimination).

The only issue that I see here is that she filled out the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas in the first place, but keep in mind it was just a campaign decision.

Of course, a Supreme Court nominee's low-level political performance 15 years ago is about as relevant as Vikings QB Daunte Culpepper's baseball stats before he was drafted by the Yankees in 1995.  I don't know - I've been on the verge of tearing Bush/Cheney off my bumper for the past 24 hours, but I'm willing to give the situation a pass . . . at least for another 24.

1. I guess I'm saying I thought he had good command of the issues today. I agree that he had trouble talking about Miers without repeating the same things over and over again, and that he seemed frustrated by this. Commentators speculated, correctly I think, that he was surprised by the strong negative reaction by the right.
   
2.  I much prefer the "slightly annoyed" look to the "wry smile" look.  Don't you?  When he goes to that wry smile look, he seems like he's play acting.
   
3. When I think press conference, my mind goes immediately to "have you ever made a mistake", Mr. President"?

It's pure speculation on my part, but here's my theory and commentary.

1 - I'm baffled by the Miers pick. In the five stages (http://dalythoughts.com/?p=4338), I suppose I'm still in stage one - denial, but I'm unwilling to move on until a few days pass.

2 - Considering how well the Roberts process went, and knowing the next pick was on deck, it's clear the POTUS did NOT want to pick a fight, have an airing of issues, provoke either side to race to the extremes and argue inward from there, etc.... Why? I suspect he (and he includes the political apparatus - Rove, RNC, Congressional leadership) wants to have that fight when it's best to have that fight - during a political campaign - an election season.

3 - Granted that a SC nomination may be the single most important act of a president (although I'd put waging war ahead of it), it is clearly the most important act which transcends political activities - by longevity first of all, and philosphically if done best of all.

4 - If the political timing is off (#2), and you've tried to handle the "philospher king" duties with the Roberts appointment, why shouldn't you treat this appointment the same way? Perhaps because you don't have to?

5 - Ergo, perhaps you know that a third appointment will come your way during an election season, when you can properly air the passionate debate your supporters and the opposition supporters all desire? Perhaps your first two appointments will show prospective justice retirees your intent, and foreshadow and appreciate their departures?

Again - I stand baffled by the Miers pick, and I could be vastly overanalyzing all this and building straw men on straw men, but Justice Stevens is 85! That's approaching the end of the actuarial tables, and he's seen the CJOTUS pass on, a vital younger man succeed him, and there are 3 years until the next election, and if we've all learned anything, it must be the unpredictabiliy of waiting around and planning a reliance on an individual elected officials appointment powers.

That, and while he may still buy yellow bananas at the grocery, I doubt he's taking on any 30 year mortgages to buy real estate.

"Can you prove that that was the only reason she rose to the position, or is it just your opinion?"  As I am not the President, I can only opine based on the facts as presented.  (Although the President has said that he trusts her)

"At every school in the nation, there are those who excel above the rest...and arguably, the best of SMU may well rival the best at Harvard or Yale..."  Arguably, I can shoot gold bullion out of my arse.  But the reality is that, with rare exception, they do not.  There's a reason why they are at SMU intead of Harvard, Yale, or even Texas.  

"Again, the point is that she rose to the top of that firm...can you provide proof that she would not have risen to the top in any of the "Big" firms?"  Gee, I guess being 5 foot tall in the land of pygmies makes you king.  Rising to the top of a mediocre law firm means absolutely nothing in my book.  In fact, it doesn't even have to mean she was a good lawyer given that most firms of that ilk back then (and many even today) make someone a partner if they manage to stick around for the requisite period.  Then, if she's not a good lawyer, they figure out what to do with you -- how about moving someone to management?  After all, it's not like a business where the CEO has real power.  Each lawyer generally manages his or her own practice and "firm management" handles administrative responsibilities.  I guess that must have prepared her for the Court.  And I do have "proof" she couldn't have risen to the top at one of the "Big Firms" -- she wouldn't even have been granted an interview at the one I work at.  

"from all appearances she is highly competent" -- because Bush says so? Again, tell me one major case of significance that she handled as lead counsel during her time in private practice.  Until then, the fact that she managed to hitch her wagon to Bush does not mean that she is "highly competent" or qualified to be on the SCt.

Bush got his VP basically the same way: Cheney was searching for a VP for Bush, and ended up picking himself.

Granted Cheney has worked wonderfully as a VP, but still something to ponder.

"The standards for mediocrity expressed on this thread and others mean any lawyer who has never worked for the government or been an academic is, by definition, mediocre."  Actually, Miers has worked for the government, so that can't be it.  

How about this?  She has never held a position of any significance prior to this President.  She hasn't been an assistant SG.  She hasn't been in the US Atty's office.  She wouldn't be on any other president's short list.  She didn't graduate from a top 10/20/30/40/50 law school.  She didn't clerk for a SCt justice or even an appellate court judge.  

I will ask you the same thing I asked someone else -- tell me one major case of significance that she handled as lead counsel during her time in private practice.  Until then, the fact that she managed to hitch her wagon to Bush does not mean that she is "highly competent" or qualified to be on the SCt.

Gosh, you GOP nutsacks have control of all 3 branches of the guvvmint, and this is the best you can do??? Wring your hands helplessly as Der Chimperor blinks against Harry Reid???  The "political capital" he's expending on this nomination must have all of your panties in a twirl.

The blue states are laughing themselves stupid over your Dear Leader's broken promises to you. :lol:  To think you actually BELIEVED in this corrupt cabal is HYSTERICAL!!!

where is your proof of this?

IMO, it appears to me that the reason many (not all, mind you) conservatives are upset with this pick is because it won't be a knock-down-drag-out fight with the dems.  I think many conservatives are itching to fight this one in the public arena more to prove a point than anything else.  I don't subscribe to this view at all when it comes to SC.  Maybe on policy issues, but not this.

Bush is a man of principle.  This doesn't always mesh very well with a fickle, poll-watching, pundnet-inundated populace.  You may not like his decisions but they are his and his alone.  He owes nothing to anyone or anything, except to his oath of office and the country he serves.  He owes nothing to the dems, nor (trouble here) his base for that matter.  Sorry, but just because his base got him elected doesn't mean he should have to follow thier every whim like a puppet.  He is not anyones whipping-boy and that is what I like about the guy.

By the way, who is the guy's base that he is not being true too?  Is it the fiscals, the socials, the religious, the sportsmen, etc...?  It is easy to consider yourself his base but within the base there are pretty significant factions.  Bottom line is you can't please everyone...

BTW, this is a great site.  Lots of smart people.

Toodles. Hope it was worth your time.

with a social conservative judicial philosophy.  Sure, Miers was empowered to identify jurists that fit a profile identified by the President and his Administration.  

No one questions her work ethic and loyalty.  By all measures she meets the criteria of an outstanding employee -- but does this criteria inspire your trust, a primary driver for Meir's rise to the highest court?

As I listended to the President repeat over and over today, "I know her" and "She will remain consistent for 20 years" I kept thinking of the political donations and Gillespie saying she was a Democrat into the early '80s.  Again, does this inspire trust?

Cerainly seated jurists can demonstrate shifts in philosophy over time -- for whatever reason.  If the President wanted to find someone with consistency of judicial philosophy, a conservative jurist who is an originalist, there are numerous better choices.  I cannot help but believe the choice of Miers will backfire -- both in the short-term support of the President and the long-term makeup of SCOTUS.

into account Laura Bush's views on the abortion issue?  I've heard that she was part of this decision process and historically she is pro-choice.  Coupled with Harry Reid's approval, I'm thinking she's another O'Connor.  

I can't imagine why he didn't go when Clinton 1 was in.  He was in his late 70's, for goodnesss sake.  Was he that sure of Gore, or was he just having that much trouble letting go?  It never has made much sense, if you believe the justices want their own ideology on the bench.

The circuit courts decide the vast majority of cases in the U.S.  Their decisions arguably affect more lives, the economy, individual companies, and our liberties than the SC.  Though the SC obviously has more power, they can't review them all.

I have got to say, I am pleasantly surprised that Republicans are actually openly challenging

their leadership for a change.  Now I am not a republican, and I am not eager to call myself a Democrat either. What I am is a person who looks at our Republic and understand that all our politicians have a vested interest in America being a powerful State. (It is the base of their power in todays world)

Having said that, I must also say that one of the main things that makes people like myself lean towards Democrats more often is that their  constituants seem to ask tougher question  regarding what they are told.

Republicans are loyal, I get it. This loyalty also helps win elections, but at what point does this Bush loyalty make ones real principles subject to subversion?

I have watched Bush Break promise after promise to real conservative Republicans (which he is not); but this is the first time I can honestly

see people in the Republican party questioning

his leadership.  

I would love for a real conservative Republican to respond and let me know their opinon of my comments.

 

I am so thrilled that the court will be ultra-conservative and we get to make profits without government looking in our plates. Those liberals are always talking about children not getting educated, the children have no shoes. Who needs that when we could be protecting our 2nd amendment gun rights and put guns on the streets to protect ourself from a "Tyrannical" Government. Its in the Constitution my friends. Look, if Joe Smo kills himself with a gun, why should that get in the way of anyone making a profit of the sale of that gun? I want to be able to shoot my gun when I want to shoot my deadgummin gun.  Now that we have the court, we could throw all abortion supporters in jail! Or they ought to be in jail. Once again, conservatives win, because we are spreading peace and love in the world. Look at Iraq, they are living better now than when saddam was there. We brought peace to Iraq my friends, Donald Rumsfeld said it! Lets outlaw hippies and peace rallies my friends, we are so close to realizing our dream of a completely conservative government. Lastly, Tom Delay should run for President hands down. Why not? I agree with tough conservative politics! So what if he was caught with his pants down, it happened to Clinton! We dont make money off of giving away free education, we have bigger liberals to fry (wink wink!). I will be sailing in my yacht and eating crumpits while dreaming of oil oil oil!

(1) That you thought this would work; and

(2) Where you're coming from.

Bye.

The thing I don't understand is why Republicans are surprised that the White House hasn't appointed justices that are clearly set to overturn Roe v Wade. Why would they? Isn't it obvious that the 15-20 percent of single issue voters the Republicans have garnered over the issue of abortion during the past 25 years would be lost if abortion actually loses Constitutional protection? Sure, not all 20 percent would vote Democratic, but maybe half of those stand to benefit more apparently by the policies promoted by the Democrats...and that's all the Republicans need to kiss their majority goodbye. Republicans have been running the White House for 17 out of the last 25 years and have controlled both houses of Congress now for several. Where is the uproar demanding a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion? Where are the pro-life justices? Nowhere to be found. And guess what...it's going to stay that way because, at the National level, Republicans depend on hanging that carrot out to the pro-life masses. Keep throwing red meat with marginal and comparatively uncontroversial things like late-term abortions or UN funding. To actually get the job done that they promise to get done would undermine the very wedge the national party depends upon for their power. So why be surprised? If you don't like it, stop voting for it.

He's a republican appointee, remember. If he wanted to wait for a democrat, he had the 90's to decide that.

He obviously did not want to resign, and probably still doesn't, nor did Rehnquist, nor did any number of others who felt no qualms about the "lifetime" part of lifetime appointment.

He may not resign at all, and simply die in office.

My point is, if his spot on the actuarial tables during Clinton's terms was another 5-10 years life expectancy, he's now at the end of the actuarial tables.

10-15 years ago he had three choices:

1 - stick around a while and maybe retire and do something else

2 - serve until I'm carried out of here or

3 - hang on until I can strategically best insure a successor pick sympathetic to my legacy;

By now, he has clearly preferred #2 there's a small probability he thinks of #1, and he seems to have completely foregone #3.

Besides, #3 is always the most uncertain choice. I forget where I read of it, but there's a long history of the court handling the transitions of just such longtimers, Douglas being the most recent worst case scenario. By all accounts the Court will handle this quietly, if not speedily, but successors almost have nothing to do with their predecessors.

Therefore, he's either indicated he may leave soon (which the POTUS likely knows), or he has no intention of doing so, in which case he's still 85. Again, with no morbid comments needed, there are 3 years left to the next presidential election, and I suspect the POTUS "knows" there's another slot opening up.

"There's a reason why they are at SMU intead of Harvard, Yale, or even Texas."

Maybe means, maybe choice...but not necessarily intellectual deficit...

Elitist...thy name is "heyyou"

Want to provide your credentials?

Is it me or does anyone else see the irony in all of this? Now I am no Republican, but it does not amuse me that many Republicans are missing the big picture. Will republicans finally acknowledge that "W" is not a conservative?  Many on the left have been saying this since day one. The proper classification for Bush Inc. & his Neo-con allies is "Reactionary Status Extremeist".  If I were a real conservative I would feel just as used by my leader as many Liberals do by the Democratic party.

If there are any folks out there that still believe Bush is a conservative, I cant wait to see what you will be saying when he gives amnesty to MILLIONS of mexican immigrants.  

I use the term Reactionary status extremeist because it is more true to reality.

with respect to the guest worker program,

ask yourself who benefits from having all those guest workers.(Big Business)and who loses (the American working class family)

What all of this is about is driving down American wages and curtailing worker rights. This will be achieved by infusing millions of people who will not argue about low wages, or lack of health care, into our work force.

the effect will be that Americans will have to compete with these new workers by lowering what they ask for in salary and compensation.

As well as being forced to accept no health coverage from their employer. If this does not occur in the short term, within ten years America will begin to feel the crippling affects of this blatant display of Oligarchy.

Just think about how much this will change the standard of living for millions and millions of Americans.  

The people who make the real decisions in the Republican party are elites. From Bush, to Frist, to their masters; all Billionnaires.

On top of that, they are all in bed with the elites that run the Democaratic party.

They revolve from think tank to private sector to policy, to government.

One thing most knowledge seekers know is that Elites are rarely if ever true conservatives.

Fascist, maybe. True conservative?

Go watch it.  Cause you won't be posting here.

You state, "What I am is a person who looks at our Republic and understand that all our politicians have a vested interest in America being a powerful State. (It is the base of their power in todays world)"

Not quite - the extremes on either side don't necessarily hold to that vested interest. On the right are many who thoroughly distrust and actively work against national powers. "States rights", notwithstanding it's historically evil connotations, has many adherents and for good reasons.

Likewise, there are plenty on the left who have wandered off into the lure of the socialist international and related positions. Wonder why the Bolton pick was so galling to so many? Prehaps they attach greater significance to the UN than "mainstream" americans, whoever they are.

As to GOP internal disputes, they are probably more visible for the obvious reasons - that's where the power is, the voters have slowly shifted the majority that way (though it's in razor's edge territory for the present) and the democrats still seem to be sorting out what positions they hold and whether they want to be the impassioned minority or the compromising majority.

is not just that Bush picked Miers. The problem is not in her qualifications, because she is an accomplished attorney and no doubt a brilliant lady. The problem is not cronyism, because the history of Supreme Court appointments demonstrates that personal affinity between President and nominee is often a factor in judicial selections.

The problem is deeper and more insidious, a cancer that may leave jurists' brains intact but threatens their hearts. When outspoken conservatives like Jones or Pryor are consistently passed over in favor of reticent unkowns, it indicates that Republicans have accepted the fallacy that ideology disqualifies one from service on the nation's highest court. Through his Supreme Court nominations, Bush is implementing a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that will quash rising judges' attempts to articluate judicial philosophies and will encourage mundane, ad hoc judicial opinions.

A strong statement on a divisive social issue or even a frank acknowledgment of one's jurisprudential approach becomes a scarlet letter on the robe of the lower court judge who is bold enough to step into the arena of ideas. To be branded an "ideologue" is apparently a fate worse than death for federal judges.

One need look no further than recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings to confirm this thesis. We saw first-hand how John Roberts perfected the art of saying nothing. Roberts articulately and deftly fielded questions by explaining that the would bring nothing to the Supreme Court but an open mind and a commitment to the Constitution. That sounds great, but what does it actually mean? I'm sure that every Justice who has sat on the Court would gladly affirm that he or she is committed to the Constitution and tries to keep an open mind. If that is the case, how can one explain the stark difference between the votes of Ginsburg and Thomas, for example?

It's because they bring different worldviews, perspectives - metanarratives, as my law school dean would say - to their interpretation of the Constitution. And it's impossible to debate which perspective is correct if we refuse to even acknowledge that such perspectives exist in judicial reasoning. Whether one favors a strict constructionist, original intent, or living Constitution approach, it is disingenuous for a nominee to hide his ideological aces so they can be slipped into the deck once he's in the game.

With the Miers pick, Bush is warning judges that anything they say can and will be used against them. Thus, strident defenders of truth are replaced by stealth candidates, a wink and a nod, and "trust me." Where are the statesmen? Where are are the Jeffersons, Hamiltons, and Madisons of this age? They're not up for Supreme Court appointments, that's for sure.

When Dubya lets me down for the first time in the arena of judicial appointments is when I will not give him the benefit of the doubt.

Dubya has earned my trust for the past 5 years in this area. He has absolutely earned it.

The Kool-Aid tastes just fine for me today!  

no proof of this either.  the people coming from Mexico/elsewhere are not even low-skilled, they are no-skilled workers.  Hardly a threat to the working class in America.  I mean no ill-will towards immigrants by calling them no-skilled, it is just a matter of fact.  The day an American citizen loses his/her job picking vegetables I'll be concerned.

Besides, why are people so afraid of a little competition?  It breeds excellence!

or were plenty of working class Americans who worked in construction, cleaning, food service.  

and there are still plenty of high paying construction jobs out there.   They just require certain skill sets.  As for the other two; low/no-skilled...

The economy is changing dynamically all the time.  Agrarian to industrial, industrial to technological, technological to <fill in the blank>.  As time goes on certain sectors of the economy fade away and and new ones emerge to take their place.

I rather think Bush sent the "anything you say can and will be used against you" message when he picked John Roberts.  For that matter, when Souter was picked, I think that message was sent.  Let's not suddenly pretend it's only the Miers pick that sent that message.

And I daresay most federal appellate judges, extremely powerful men and women in their own right, think that not being named to the Supreme Court is a fate worse than death.

-TS

Almost all of the construction workers in my area are now Mexican immigrants, most, but not all of whom are illegal.  The ones I've met are extremely skilled masons and carpenters and very hard working.  

However, they are definitely putting the local boys out of business.  The local guys have to pay rent and feed their kids at US rates.  The immigrants make do living many to an apartment or rented house and send home money to pay their family's rent and feed their kids at Mexico's prices.  The local guys simply can not compete. It's not a level playing field.

I probably should have said Bush is perpetuating a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, rather than "implementing" one with the Miers pick.

Because I don't want someone who could only get into a second-rate law school?

Here's my credentials:  Adopted.  Small time state U.  First in my family to go to college.  Worked full time during college to pay for it.  Top 10 law school.  Took out loans and worked to pay for it.  Graduated top 10% with various awards.  Federal appellate court clerkship.  Now partner at large international law firm (generally regarded as "prestigious" by various surveys.  NOT QUALIFIED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ON THE US SUPREME COURT.

Instead of CS Lewis, Jeb Bush should have used this book for the reading program.

not sure about your local economy.  where I live construction, especially new home, is strong and pays pretty decent.  Commercial is also strong.  for how long? I don't know.  having said that, I am not against reasonable immigration policies.  I think, however, it over-simplifies the problem to blame job loss immigration policies on lax immigration policies.  there are other things at work like local regulation, taxation, land-use policies, new technologies, changing market dynamics, etc...  business always has and always will look for the path of least resistance.  outsourcing and new technology are among the few.  I think personally we are starting to see signs of a changing economy, and changing immigration policies will have little effect on sectors of the economy disappearing or going to cheaper labor pools.  I am an IT person in a mfg business.  my job is as vunerable as anyone else's is.  

I guess I am just stating that as the economy changes, we have to follow suit or get run over in the process.  Americans have mostly decided to follow suit through the years.  I think we will be fine.

A bigger problem is the debt load the average American carries.  Self-inflicted for the most part.  A lot of people live pay-check to pay-check because they spend too much and have to rich of tastes.

and whether you realize it or not, you are, Constitutionally speaking, qualified to sit as an Associate Justice...does that mean you would be nominated...no.

From your post, I would guess your guy lost...deal with it.

I have not said she should be confirmed...but you have not PROVEN that she is not qualified.

The Justices on the Supreme Court are not Gods, and many of them have excelled, despite relative inexperience.

is trying to decide whether you should be the head of the firm or someone else, you think they should focus on (a) your experience in the years since you went to your small time state U, or (b) the fact that you didn't go to an Ivy League university for your undergrad degree?  For that matter, seeing as how there are 15-20 schools in the "Top 10 law schools", should they consider your overall record of achievement or just go with the guy who has the Yale Undergrad, Harvard JD pedigree?

What makes you qualified over Mr. Golden Pedigree to lead YOUR FIRM, nevermind the Associate Justice of the SCOTUS?

If I am trying to pick between two law firms to represent my company, and you are the partner for your firm, and some guy with Yale/Harvard/Rhodes Scholar/Supreme Court clerkship is the partner for the other law firm, should I just go with him automatically because he's more qualified than you?

-TS

I realize that I technically am "qualified" to sit on the SCOTUS.  However, I am not truly qualified because I do not have the experience necessary.  And neither does Miers (unless all that is required is a law degree and a pulse, which I concede she has).

You apparently have realized you lost the argument with your segue from "what are your credentials" to, following my posting my credentials, to your "From your post, I would guess your guy lost...deal with it" rationale.  I didn't have a "guy" -- I would have have been pleased with Garza, Estrada, Williams, Luttig, Alito, etc., etc., etc.  The problem is I wanted someone who truly was qualified (see Roberts) and was committed to the same Constitutional ideals I hold (see the above list).  We received neither.  

I challenge you to point to any Justice that "excelled, despite relative inexperience."  

"The Justices on the Supreme Court are not Gods, and many of them have excelled, despite relative inexperience."

Better tell that to Nancy Pelosi.

She is the nominee of the President...which means that "he" is satisfied that she is both qualified and in line with his philosophy....

...and Counselor...your use of the term "Bushie" cast your comment that you did not have a guy in a questionable light.

Top Ten Law school...by whose assessment?

http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/composite.html

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20000620_goldstein.html

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/law/brief/lawrank_brief.php

The "only" qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice are that they be the choice of the President and have the ability to be confirmed.

You may not respect the way she has climbed the ladder, but she has done so...and deserves her shot now.

"So when your firm is trying to decide":  I wouldn't want to be the head of the firm.  I practice law, not administrative crap.  That's my point -- her job as the head administrator of a law firm does not qualify her to be a Justice.  

"should they consider your overall record of achievement or just go with the guy who has the Yale Undergrad, Harvard JD pedigree?"  Of course, it's the overall record.  Read my posts -- I am arguing that her overall record makes this a bad pick.  It's not just limited to SMU undergrad and SMU equals no nomination.  

"If I am trying to pick between two law firms"  If it's to represent your company before the SCOTUS, you better go with the guy with Yale/Harvard/Rhodes Scholar/Supreme Court clerkship.  If it's to handle a piece of litigation, I think that guy probably has the upper hand based on those criteria.  However, based on the overall package, you should pick me.  Again, my point is that her overall package is weak, very weak.  

that is just funny.

Can you find a 3 tri-mester abortion rights dichotomy in the US Constitution?

A bunch of top ten ivy leaguers can even though its not there. They are not qualified.

and it is entitled to as much weight as direct evidence. She led the search. Can you deny that? And she was the pick, notwithstanding the fact that she lacks ANY objective qualification for the O'Connor seat. Even O'Connor, selected as she was in an era when GOP jurists were slim pickings, had prior judicial experience, albeit in a state intermediate court. Moreover, O'Connor was #3 at Stanford. I'm not saying O'Connor turned out as I would have hoped, but I think there are many more GOP female jurists who are competent and accomplished.

For those of you who think it is elitist to say success at a top-tiered law school is a sine qua non for SCOTUS nomination, I think you are beginning to sound like radical egalitarians who think any objective measure of attainment (LSAT, grades and class rank, law review, clerkship, professional attainments) is somehow illegitimate. I don't subscribe to that Lake Wobegone worldview.

harry got snookered. The left will not allow this devout born again evangelical christian pro-life advocate go by easily. Oh no. We will have our fight on Bush's terms. I think Bush's eyes got wide when he saw harriet's name on Reid's list. He knows her. No vetting. Safe conservative vote. Had to take it.

"She is the nominee of the President...which means that "he" is satisfied that she is both qualified and in line with his philosophy...."  If you would've just said that Bush decides and no one can question, that would have stopped this long ago.  

"your use of the term "Bushie" cast your comment that you did not have a guy in a questionable light."  You can interpret however you'd like.  I used "Bushie" in the sense that this is a cronyism pick and that there are a substantial number of better qualified conservative judges and potential judges passed over by the President.

"Top Ten Law school...by whose assessment?"  All three things you cite (even the one that says "this is a joke and don't pay any attention to it) and pretty much any other reference source you can find.  By the way, none of them (even the joke ones) put SMU within spitting distance of the Top 20.

" If you would've just said that Bush decides and no one can question, that would have stopped this long ago.  "

I didn't say that...the Constitution did...strange that an attorney has such a problem with the Constitution....

is conflicted, at the minimum.  I am okay with your objection that her overall package is weak.  That doesn't square easily with:

"Ah, so if they didn't attend Yale or Harvard, they shouldn't get to play ball?"  That's exactly what I said.  Thanks for playing.  There's a big difference between SMU and Harvard/Yale/any number of other law schools.

So which is it? Whole package or the diploma?

-TS

Did their undergrad at Maryland and Law School at Howard?

I didn't realize that the democrats had taken over this thread (or at least people with the comprehension ability of democrats).  The Senate is free to reject Miers for her lack of qualifications.  Public opinion is free to condemn the President for selecting a crony.  

Her weak package starts with her choice of SMU law.  It continues with her choice of law firms.  It continues with her lack of experience (no SG's office, no experience in a US Atty's office, no experience in the Justice Dept, no experience clerking for an appellate court judge, etc.).  The fact that she held some political or semi-political offices does not overcome those weaknesses.  That she hooked her wagon to Bush -- starting with the staff secretary position, which no powerhouse lawyer would take -- does not overcome those weaknesses.  Can you just imagine John Roberts, Ted Olson, Miguel Estrada, etc. taking a paper pushing position?  No, but I can imagine an administrator/politico doing that.  It doesn't qualify her for the Court.

Can you honestly say that she would be on any other president's list of 100/500/1000 potential nominees?  Has anyone pointed out any significant case she handled as lead counsel during her "many years of experience"?  Heck, can anyone identify any significant case she even worked on?  I've been asking these questions and no one has answered them yet.  

if the person finished at the top of the class and had a demonstrated record of achievement following law school, including but not limited to holding significant positions in government and/or a record as a judge.

If her choice of SMU Law back in 1967 rules Miers out from consideration, the 'whole package' stuff just seems like window dressing to me.

It appears no different from my taking your choice to go to a small no-name state U for undergrad, ruling you out from consideration for anything, then saying "the whole package starts with your choice to attend crappy state U intead of Harvard".

Either you made up your mind at the SMU thing or you did not.  You appear to have done so, then justified the decision with the rest of the "no SG, no US Attorney, no clerkship" stuff.  You can do that, of course, but it isn't what I would call "whole package analysis".

-TS

justices that can't read the constitution. ratings of law schools by a bunch of liberals. We judge the product. Reagan graduated from Eureka and was smarter and wiser than any President in my lifetime. His policies actually worked.

Hooked her wagon, means she worked. You want her to have govt exp and then fuss about wagon hooks. She has consistently been rated one of the top 100 lawyers in america and has actually tried case! All cases are significant to the client. What the NYT deems significant, increasingly isn't.

Scalia:  Harvard Law, atty at Jones Day, well-regarded professor at UVa and Chicago, several govt positions including AAG at the Office of Legal Counsel, DC Cir judge

Thomas:  Yale Law, state govt atty, Chair of the EEOC, DC Circuit

Rehnquist:  Stanford Law (#1 in his class), clerked for Justice Jackson, AAGeneral in the Office of Legal Counsel

Luttig:  UVa Law, counselor to the AG, AAG, clerk for Chief Justice Burger, clerk for then DC Cir Judge Scalia

And "hooked her wagon" doesn't mean "she worked."  It means that her limited govt service (starting as staff secretary) was obtained only as a result of cronyism, same as her nomination to SCOTUS.  

Do you really want me to go through the bios for Alito, Williams, Garza, Estrada, etc. to prove you wrong?

Gee, way to ignore everything else so you can seize upon a single item to support your erroneous thesis.  It's easy to overcome SMU Law:  finish high in your class and do the other things I mentioned.  

If you want to say crappy state U outweighs (1) doing well there, (2) going to a top law school, (3) finishing near the top my class, (4) clerking for an appellate judge who has been on several shortlists for the Court, (5) working at one of what virtually all lawyers consider to be a top firm, (6) being one of the few people to make partner at that firm, and (7) handling the types of cases I handle, then fine.  Of course, that's not all all what I'm saying.  Indeed, I would argue that I'm not "qualified" for the Court because I haven't served in the SG's office, been a judge of any type, etc.  But please feel free to restate this into another strawman you can knock down.  

It was you who dismissed her based on the college she attended, and the credentials YOU think she does not possess...but cannot seem to fully articulate.

flight law schools, and prestigious law firms have been lousy Supreme Court Justices...

...while others have attended lesser known schools and worked in smaller law firms, but have done quite well on the Court.

...again, your elitism is becoming very apparent.

Fine, either I inferred incorrectly, or you implied incorrectly, that your mind was made up at the SMU/SMU stage.  As long as that's not the case, we have no real disagreement.

-TS

You try to rebut by comments by pointing out that the "profile" I purportedly described pertains only to crazy liberal judges.  When I point out that you are just flat wrong, you throw out the "elitist" comment again.  Go look at the Justices you're thinking about and then look at the experience they had before joining the Court -- point out anyone to whom Miers compares.  

When you can actually engage in an intelligent debate, I'm happy to revisit this.  

I label you an elistist because you have earned the title...

May I remind you that you started this discussion with this comment

"based on her record of mediocrity, I'm betting on the latter.   "

You still have not demonstrated that her record is in fact mediocre...

You have attacked her college of choice...called her a crony...and belittled her law firm....

...but not proven your assertion.

1.  She was President of the Texas Bar:  and that qualifies you to be on the SCt how?
   
2.  She was the head of a major law firm:  First, that firm is far from a "major" law firm.  Second, that qualifies you to be on the SCt how?
   
3.  I'd like to know who would take the staff secretary gig who also could go into the SG's office or any number of other positions.
   
4.  Look for one major case of significance that she handled as lead counsel during her time in private practice.
   
5.   Support your assertion that there are Justices that "excelled, despite relative inexperience."  

Your (non)responses are to attack my credentials (you were wrong), to say that I am not in favor of Miers because my guy was not selected (wrong), to say that I dismissed her based on the college she attended (wrong), to say that I have not articulated the credentials she does not possess (wrong), and to say that my "profile" fits only liberal judges (wrong).  Thanks for playing.

He had some formal education as a youngster when there really wasn't any.  

He was a war hero.

He was a member of a member of the Virginia Legislature and later a member of the House of Representatives.

From historical reports, it appears that many considered him the finest lawyer in Virginia.

Again from reports, he was one of the leaders in the Virginia convention debates in favor of adopting the Constitution.

He was appointed as a delegate (not an ambassador but I don't remember exactly what it was called) to France, where he pissed them off (good enough in my book).  He turned down opportunities to be Washington's AG, an Associate Justice, and Adams' secretary of war.

He was the Secretary of State.

Would you like to try again?

I'm impressed bro.

But despite all that, he invented the power of judicial review even though no such power is granted the court by the constitution.

1. miers is better educated
   
   
2. she is a war law hero
   
   
3. dallas (city council) has greater population than 18th C Va.
   
   
4. top 50 lawyer in US aba (marshall best in Va.)
   
   
5. she p.o.'s all anti christian bigots!

Now, to be fair to marshall. H e is one of the greatest Americans ever. And judicial review in some form is essential to decide cases. the congress could rein in the court but won't or we could amend to limit it.

Plus, presidents also take a oath the constitution and can challenge a court and tale it to the people.

..so the responsibility to prove is yours...not mine.

You dismiss her background, because YOU do not feel that it qualifies her for the office...

As for your questions...

" She was President of the Texas Bar:  and that qualifies you to be on the SCt how?"

Know much about the Texas Bar?  Honestly, I did not, until listening to some interviews on the topic yesterday....it is not akin to the ABA or most state bars...it is actually a fairly prestigious position.

" She was the head of a major law firm:  First, that firm is far from a "major" law firm.  Second, that qualifies you to be on the SCt how?"

400 members, in two major Texas cities...maybe doesn't impress you...by I think that may have to do with the fact that it was in Texas...and not Boston or NYC....

" I'd like to know who would take the staff secretary gig who also could go into the SG's office or any number of other positions."

Maybe someone not hung up on titles....you worry about where she started...I tend to focus on where she ended up.

" Look for one major case of significance that she handled as lead counsel during her time in private practice."

That will likely come up in the confirmation process...which I think is completely appropriate.

 Look for one major case of significance that she handled as lead counsel during her time in private practice.

"  Support your assertion that there are Justices that "excelled, despite relative inexperience."  

http://still-thinking.redstate.org/story/2005/10/4/05812/1415

war law hero?

in fashioning legal bases for broad executive power as commander in cheif in all aspects of the war, none of which have been shot down by the sup ct as of now. Given the pow vs, enemy combatent issue and  the unique nature of this terror war, her perforamnce has been impressive. She also was involved in drafting the war resolutions.

I have written a lot of legal columns for the Atlanta paper on this subject and am impressed with Bush's legal arguments and their precedent back to 17th C law definitions of what are trhe inherent exec powers as understood by the founders.

You all need to chill. I'm not a conservative but I'd be thrilled at this pick. So what if she's not an intellectual powerhouse, neither is George Bush and he's the president. He chose her the same way you chose him; she agrees with him on the issues. If that method was good enough to select the leader of the free world then how can you complain now? You want justices like Scalia and Thomas. Cool. Roberts is an intellectual powerhouse (Scalia) and Miers, a mediocrity (Thomas) who will be a loyal conservative. What's so bad about that? Thomas doesn't "lead" the court but conservatives still like him. And in case u all missed Katrina, this isn't the time for a fight; the country is hurting. Bush was brilliant on this.

1.  miers is better educated:  not when you compare Marshall versus his contemporaries and Miers versus her's.
   
2.  she is a war law hero:  Umm, I don't think I can rebut that as I don't know what it means.  However, if you are trying to give her credit for the many things that were done under Gonzales, Ashcroft, et al., I'd disagree.  
   
3.  dallas (city council) has greater population than 18th C Va.:  hacks.  All of them.  This is not a positive for her.
   
4.  top 50 lawyer in US aba (marshall best in Va.):  there is no way she's a top 50 lawyer (she's hit the "influential" list due to her ties with Bush).  If she is, find one case of any significance where she was lead counsel.  Just one.  
   
5.  she p.o.'s all anti christian bigots!  So would a lot of more qualified potential nominees.

"Know much about the Texas Bar?  Honestly, I did not, until listening to some interviews on the topic yesterday....it is not akin to the ABA or most state bars...it is actually a fairly prestigious position.... 400 members, in two major Texas cities...maybe doesn't impress you...by I think that may have to do with the fact that it was in Texas...and not Boston or NYC...."  

It's like taking candy from a baby.  I am a member of the Texas bar.  I practice in Texas.  I vote for the president of the Texas Bar.  The Texas Bar president is not a prestigious position.  No one cares.  And no, Miers' former firm does not impress me (although there are some very good lawyers sprinkled throughout it).  And when Miers was primarily running it, it was prior to the merger and really only had a presence in 1 city.

And your link to your diary entry repeating someone's list of Justices that did not previously serve as judges demonstrates your lack of reading comprehension -- (1) I never said someone had to be a judge before being considered for SCOTUS, (2) the list includes some stiffs that in no way support your premise that  "there are Justices that excelled, despite relative inexperience," and (3) if you look at the credentials for many of those Justices who did excel (see, e.g., my prior post about Marshall), you will find that there in fact were not "relatively inexperienced" but instead had a wealth of experience.  

Ummm...the list is one I compiled few days ago.

"The Texas Bar president is not a prestigious position.  No one cares.

Maybe you don't, but apparently some do...

"... but instead had a wealth of experience. "

Some did, some didn't...but you still have not PROVED that SHE is mediocre...

c'mon now, you work there...provide the smoking gun...surely a graduate of a Top Ten Law school, can back up his argument against a High School Government teacher....Provide some facts..not opinions.

You will never be convinced.  You cannot support anything you've said and, when called on it, come back with personal attacks that prove to be wrong or with excuses like "the list I linked to in support of my argument doesn't really support my argument because I compiled it a few days ago."  I now understand why.

I have represented many accused defendants that were innocent and I got a not guilty verdict. One case was an mayor accused of child molestation, was on cnn and in usa today. But is no more significant than unpublicized muder cases.

I recoil at the term significant. that she lead such a large firm and tried cases, she obviously won many cases.

But I will look.

Miers is no less educated than anyone with a BA and JD in the US. Where do live, cambridge?

I actually think that she was first a top 50 lawyer before Bush when she led the firm and was  a leader of the ABA. Hillary was actually on the list. I honestly don;t care for the lists. I'm not into "honors" as such.

Well they both got elected. i lost my only race for county council. I won the conty dem party chair due to blue collar and black votes.

Things done under ashcroft? You mean you didn't favor the pentagon's investigation and prosecution of the rogue abu graib shift thatwas launched and made public months before the press jumped on it?

You have made a few personal attacks as well...

You have not provided PROOF that she is mediocre..not once..you have tried to infer it, but you have not proven it...

"the list I linked to in support of my argument doesn't really support my argument because I compiled it a few days ago."

Can you quote me saying that...you didn't seem to notice that I had been the one that compiled the list...in a post where you criticized MY reading comprehension.....

The fact is, I do not have the obligation to prove you wrong...but rather, since you were the one who started this with a comment that she was "mediocre", you have a responsibility to prove such a statement with verifiable facts.

elitists. The failure is not being known by them. Truly worthy nominees make sure they are known.

What has really been enlightening this week, especially on talk radio, is to see so mnay conservatives I admire trapped in an elitist mode and not realizing it, even when they denounce elitism, they do with elitist arguments. Its a real study in the cocoon effect and taking oneself too seriously. The idea that a nominee MUST be known to them. And going off before she testifies. Rush, and I love RUSH!! is still stuck on this reverance and presumption that Bush just had to appoint one of them, as if there aren't conservatives unknown the them that should evn be considered.

I even have to watch myself. I have come to have such disdain and contempt for modern lib and dem leaders and many lib professors due to their anti intellectual vacuous views, and also to appreciate more and more, the wisdom of trtaditional values more prominent down here, that I have to fight against feelings of Southern Superiority complex!

I asked you to "Support your assertion that there are Justices that 'excelled, despite relative inexperience.'"  You sent me to your list (which I assumed was from the Oyez link you included at the bottom of the list).  I called you on it, pointing out that your list didn't support your assertions ("the list includes some stiffs that in no way support your premise that 'there are Justices that excelled, despite relative inexperience,'").  Your response was "Ummm...the list is one I compiled few days ago."  I don't think that can be interpreted any way other than how I interpreted it:  "the list I linked to in support of my argument doesn't really support my argument because I compiled it a few days ago."

"The failure is not being known by them."  I think you're talking about "known by name," not that I must personally know her.  From your other posts, I thought you wouldn't make assumptions.  Why do you assume I do not know Miers (by name)?  Why do you assume that I do not know people who do personally know her (and that they all say she is a wonderful person)?  Why do you assume that I do not know attorneys who have practiced with her, against her, and on the same side as her?  I have no gripe with her.  I wish her the best and, now nominated, hope she is confirmed just because she is too good a person to have that black mark against her.  I am personally sad that her nomination has caused all of us to focus on her and have this debate.  That said, I just do not believe she has the requisite qualifications.  I think her nomination sets an unfortunate precedent.  I think there are many, many more highly qualified people out there.  And now, I've said too much.  

PROVED that she is mediocre?

No

I guess you only have a high standard for others....

Tell you what...I will do the research and prove my point when you do likewise...

"She was listed as the attorney of record on relatively few cases during her time as a litigator, but handled some very large clients, including Microsoft Corp., The Walt Disney Co., the Anaheim Angels, Chase Manhattan Bank and Schering Plough Corp. However, she also had a substantial pro bono practice."  

Read the last part of that sentence as "she served as local counsel when they got sued in Texas and their real lawyers needed a Dallas mailbox."