High Court Nominee Has Never Been a Judge

Actually she been a single women dedicated to her work, childless, family and life issues has never been in her agenda personally.

But I found this quote from 1993 in which she took a stance about pro-abortion rights, perhaps the only time that she has done that.

As president of the Texas State Bar in 1993, Miers was a leader in an unsuccessful fight to persuade the American Bar Association to reconsider its pro-abortion rights stance by submitting it to a nationwide referendum.

At the time, she questioned whether the group should "be trying to speak for the entire legal community" on an issue that she said "has brought on tremendous divisiveness" within the organization.

While Miers evidently did not publicly state a view on the issue of abortion at the time, one conservative cited the events to support her nomination.

I guess she as a women have an opinion after all.

www.boston.com




mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 3-10-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

Public referendum, eh? If she convinces the court to have one now, the fundy vote may just take it?

Originally posted by Carseller4
I don't like this pick.

Bush blew it. Just like his dad when he picked Souter.

Why not John Ashcroft, Roy Moore, Janice Brown, or any of the nominees that the Democrats tried to fillibuster? I would have picked an "in your face" conservative that the Democrats would have had heart attacks over.

What did he have to lose?

The more I think about it the more disgusted I get.

The White House and the RNC will surely here about this.

I'm sure they are shaking in their boots...

I dont know how much more it will take before you people realise that this gov doesnt give a rats about their voters. You = played.

The talking heads are calling this an affirmative action choice.

Once the opposition chimes in about unqualifications, what does that say for other 'affirmative action' candidates in other areas of government sponsored jobs and programs that require certain percents of women and minorities (or other disadvantaged)?

It's putting out the message that this administration supports affirmatiave action in a way that many would not wish to see it used--by hiring the unqualified over those with much better experience and knowledge.

I still say she's a crony choice, but I think they have the affirmative action people over a barrel here.

Originally posted by psyopswatcher
The talking heads are calling this an affirmative action choice.

I call it a slick trick to bring in someone under the radar, and with no background to go against.

Top Ten Signs Your Supreme Court Pick Isn't Qualified

10. Lost 10 grand yesterday in the 'case' of Jets vs. Ravens

9. Spends most of her time trying to fit the gavel into her mouth

8. Her legal mentor: Oliver Wendell Redenbacher

7. Asks courtroom stenographer to, 'Quit that annoying tapping!'

6. Instead of Constitutional law books, consults set of 'Garfield' paperbacks

5. Keeps shouting, 'When does mama get to hang somebody?!'

4. When Scalia walks by, she pretends to cough and says, 'Rogaine'

3. Authored the book: 'I'm Not Qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice'

2. The closest thing to courtroom experience was being an extra on 'Matlock'

1. Glowing letter of recommendation from former FEMA director Michael Brown

--Late Show with David Letterman

Miers is an unusual choice, the conservatives are opposed to her, and the democrats are infact in favour of her and are endorsing her. She's never been a judge, which I'd think would be an automatic decline, but, apparently, neither have a number of supreme court justices, like Rehnquist, or like Earl Warren. The conservatives are oppposed to her because she's not a 'movement' conservative, she's not an activist conservative, and the democrats, the party at least, are ok with her for, well, basically the same reason.

Anyway, Roberts got elevated to the position of cheif justice without so much as a squak, so she'll fly through.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by psyopswatcher
The talking heads are calling this an affirmative action choice.

I call it a slick trick to bring in someone under the radar, and with no background to go against.

Actually it is a bad idea.

Speaking from someone who has been in court rooms and is training to be a barrister, not having the knowledge can put her in a tight spot straight away. It is why in the U.K. you get promoted from court to court as a judge, till you hit the top court.

If she doesnt have the legal knowledge she could cause major problems in the long run than those who understand the courts, legal systems and people better than her...

Conservatives are showing already disappointment on the Choice of Mr. Bush.

Facing questions from conservatives who were disappointed over his father’s choice of Justice David Souter, who has become one of the most liberal members of the court, Bush insisted that Miers was a strict constructionist and a conservative and would stay that way.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9587683/

Many religious pro life advocates are also getting to the realization that Mr. Bush never had in mind to appoint judges that will be friendly to their cause.

Among pro-lifers, I have long held the minority view that Bush never had the slightest intention of packing the Supreme Court with justices who would seek to overturn the 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Karl Rove would throw himself in front of a train before he let that happen.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9579542/site/newsweek/

Taking in consideration that most Pro lifers are very vocal in their views, Miers has always been obscure on her opinions about it.

I take it as a hint.

Originally posted by Odium


If she doesnt have the legal knowledge she could cause major problems in the long run than those who understand the courts, legal systems and people better than her...

She does have legal knowledge. She ran one of the biggest law firms in Texas.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, was not a bench sitter before his appointment either.
Nor were a lot of judges previous to him.


I guess it's a good talking point to harp on though eh?

I found this article that lists a few others.
not a judge? not a rarity.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by Odium


If she doesnt have the legal knowledge she could cause major problems in the long run than those who understand the courts, legal systems and people better than her...

She does have legal knowledge. She ran one of the biggest law firms in Texas.

This is why I said "If she doesn't" and not "She doesn't".

I am not overly interested in her career though, as primarily it seems to have been once based on working for larger Multi-National's, when the Supreme Court should be focused more on the people of America...

and they criticized the democrats as being "anybody but Bush." I was listening to Fox last night and they had a few conservative commentators on and they were voicing their disappointment with Bush....it was like:
"I'm a libertarian, but I voted for bush. I disagreed with his stand on the war with Iraq, and I disagreed with him on his immigaration policies, and I disagreed with him on his big government with big debt. And, I disagreed with him on his economic policies." with a few conservatives all agreeing with him..then there was the equally agreeable..."but I thought I could trust him with these court appointments to put in someone who would overturn Roe vs. Wade!"
so, what got Bush into office must of been the ABA crowd, the anything but abortion! oh ya, go ahead and lie about wmd's and make up threats where none exist, go ahead and send our troops into a war needlessly. go ahead and and trade our national security for cheap labor by making refusing to protect our borders. go ahead and compromise our constitution and bill of rights.....we live with anything!!! except the idea that a women can abort a baby......even if that same emotion that you are playing with the american population to get your wars....self-preservation....is her motivational force.

ANYTHING BUT ABORTION!!!

Originally posted by dawnstar
and they criticized the democrats as being "anybody but Bush."

[snip]

ANYTHING BUT ABORTION!!!

See also "We've defended you for five years for this moment!"

For anyone that's ever wondered why self proclaimed "conservatives" keep voting for and defending bigger and more bloated government, nation building, the erosion of civil liberties and "compassionate" neocon hyperliberalism...

Because somebody told them to think of the little unborn babies
(even though they're never going to do a damn thing about it).

Some do think past their manufactured hot buttons though. Conservative literati George Will is an actual fan of the real Constitution (and not the one they teach in "Living the Purpose Driven Life" Republican Meet-Ups).

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

. . . [T]he president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. . . . It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless,

Well, now we can have the unusual and ironic spectacle of the republicans refering to the conservatives as obstructionists and critics-with-no-solutions.