Who is she? (I’m asking much more in the GD than the GQ sense.
Link to USA Today blurb on her nomination to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Tough to say. She certainly seems to have some serious legal chops but her judicial chops are, to be generous, scanty to non-existent.
Sounds like a Bush loyalty pick to me. And with no track record she’s a blank slate for the committee.
Yah, more cronyism. To be fair, she has a tad more qualifications for the Supreme Court than Michael Brown had for FEMA, but I think the Senate would be well advised to carefully examine her qualifications. Though the Pubbies will prolly roll over for her like they roll over for anything else Bush does.
Surprise, surprise. One of the inner circle gets the nod. Without a day of judicial experience, how very nice. The Democrats will examine her record and vote based on her merits. The Republicans will vote 100% as they are told, then accuse the Dems of being partisan.
Actually, you ARE surprised, and so are the Senate Democrats, who are going nuts right around now. Because the Democrats had extensive files of dirt on all the people they THOUGHT were candidates for the job (Edith Jones would have been ambushed big time), but probably have NOTHING on her.
So, as they did with the equally unexpected John Roberts, the Dems will now start insisting on seeing every memo Miers has ever written, hoping to find a good reason to reject her. The Chuck Schumer philosophy has long been “We hate your nominees and will reject them, as soon as we figure out a plausible reason.”
The REAL problem with Miers, of course, is on the Republican side. Far too often, Republican presidents have picked judges with no track record who then turn out to be far more liberal than expected. Miers has never been a judge before. If her only qualification for the job is that Bush knows and likes her and thinks she’ll be confirmed… well, we could have a female Souter on our hands.
So, your suggestion that Republicans will just roll over and vote as they’re told is laughable. Conservatives in the Senate will want to see some sign that Miers, a blank slate, actually has some conservative principles, and isn’t eager to “grow” (a la Blackmun and Kennedy )in her new position.
I’m not at all convinced that judicial nominations ought to go solely to judges. That hasn’t been the rule for much of our history.
A recent complaint about the federal judiciary has been that it is quite insular. I’m sympathetic to this argument, made well by Stuart Taylor Jr. in the Atlantic
Harriet Miers, though, is a former elected official (Dallas city council), and thus an interesting replacement for the only other former elected official on the bench, Justice O’Connor.
And for those who fret about a lack of judicial experience, a quick question: What bench experience did Chief Justice Earl Warren have before his appointment?
Tell you what- I’ll give you a nickel for every Republican who votes no if you give me a nickel for every Democrat who votes yes (yes, I’m a big-time gambler). The Pubbies will vote as they are told, as they always do.
Hey, the Democrats should love her. The National Review is saying that she isn’t conservative enough:
Fine with me. If the National Review isn’t happy and the Democrats aren’t happy she’s my kind of pick.
Oh, I don’t think Dems are all that suprised. I heard Miers’ name as a potential Supreme Court nominee last week – picking your own legal counsel is an old practice … I think Rehnquist came from Nixon’s White House legal staff. ‘Course, there may be a general lack of info about Miers’ beliefs, etc.
As for the Pubbies, I’m sure Bush is prepared to give them whatever private assurances he gave that had them all smiling and happy over Roberts. The Secret Sign as it were.
Could you find for me, please, the Democratic senators that voted against the Breyer and Ginsburg nominations?
She was recommended by Harry Reid Senate Minority leader
If Roberts and Miers do turn out to be closet moderates (the new Bad Word for conservatives, I guess) it would go far to confirm my suspicion that the Pubbie leadership feels that overturning Roe v. Wade would shift the balance of political power to the Dems.
To be fair, nobody much of either party voted against Breyer and Ginsburg because Clinton had a policy of vetting his candidates to the leadership in the Senate before nominating them. So any objections could be worked out in private, beforehand. Made for a very easy confirmation process, as opposed to the current stupid way of doing things.
Love your track record on SCOTUS predictions, BTW.
A side, bonus question:
It’s my understanding, from discussions that followed Roberts’ nomination, that because he’s worked with the SC for years, argued cases there and worked as legal counsel for the White House, that it’s not a tough transition for him, even though he had very limited experience as a judge. How difficult would the transition be for someone like Miers, who was also a counsel and is a lawyer, but has not really worked in a trial sort of setting (AFAIK), at least recently.
Here’s the current (new?) Wikipedia link to Harriet Miers.
Yeah- I mean, look how many Pubbies voted against Breyer and Ginsburg.
You mean the same secret sign Papa Bush gave on Souter? The secret sign Reagan gave on Kennedy?
Nice try, though.
You mean, vetted-in-advance-by-Orrin-Hatch Breyer and Ginsburg?
If Bush wants to get his picks approved by Teddy Kennedy before nominating them, I guarantee you any confirmation problems won’t come from the Dem side.