There’s all manner of experience in the world, Diogenes. What makes judicial experience necessarily better in this regard?
I noted in the other Miers thread the fact that Chief Justice Earl Warren had no judicial experience at all prior to his appointment. Would you care to comment about how this lack of experience invalidated his opinions?
When I heard NPR’s bio on Miers, they mentioned that she’s 60, not married (never been?) and has no children. My first thought was, “What the hell does she look like?” I saw her photo and I understood completely. Yeesh!
Right. Authority figures never appoint people they’ve had long association with unless they’re drug addicts. That goes a long way to explaining the Clinton administration. And Bush One. And Nixon. And JFK. And Lyndon Johnson. And . . . you should be getting the picture by now. All of our presidents have been untreated drug addicts.
From the article linked:
“Eager to rebut any charges of cronyism, the White House produced statistics showing that 10 of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933 had worked for the president who picked them. Among them were the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, first tapped for the court by Richard M. Nixon, and Byron White, whose president was John F. Kennedy.”
The phrase “invalidate an opinion” is meaningless. An opinion can neither be validated nor invalidated.
To answer your larger question, Warren was unqualified for the job and only got it by blackmailing Eisenhower into appointing him. He was a complete asswipe as a governor and as an AG. He was a sexist, a racist (he was a leading force behind the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII) and a rabid comie baiter. I know I’m supposed to think he’s great because of Brown, but one good decision (which was a no-brainer, really) does not somehow prove the guy was not an unqualified assclown.
Janet Reno, anyone? Who cares what she looks like? What possible implication does her appearance have regarding her qualifications - or lack of same?
You have to admit, that would explain a lot of American history.
That’s not at all true, and that’s the root of the argument over the Court.
All of their decisions are based upon opinion. If they choose to overturn a previously held opinion they have indeed invalidated it.
No, they haven’t invalidated it, they’ve just overturned it. The opinion was valid while it stood.
It’s meaningless to ask why a lack of experience would invalidate an opinion. How do you prove whether any opinion is “valid” or not?
I didn’t say she wasn’t qualified. I’m sure she’s a fine attorney, seeing how she was President of the Texas Bar Association, etc.
While I know that MANY women opt out of marriage and children and dive into their careers, it is unusual. I was struck by her very young sounding voice before I heard her bio, and that’s why I wondered what she looked like.
Byron White. No judicial experience.
Robert H. Jackson. No judicial experience.
Felix Frankfurter. No judicial experience.
Hugo L. Black. Part time police court judge for three years. No other judicial experience.
Stanley F. Reed. No judicial experience.
Louis D. Brandeis. No judicial experience.
Lewis F. Powell. No judicial experience.
William O. Douglas. No judicial experience.
I could easily come up with more, especially if I go to the nineteenth century.
Now, I can understand your objection to Chief Justice Warren, Diogenes. Can you tell me now how these various men were unqualified for the Court?
Okay. And I guess my remarks were probably more strident than necessary - this thread being in MPSIMS (at least for now) and all. But since I’m butt-ugly (and kinda single) myself, I overreacted.
I know nothing about most of them and I don’t feel like doing a bunch of research. I will just say that the fact that appointing non-judges to the court has precedent is not the same as proving that non-judges are qualified.
I’m no looker, either. I was naughty for commenting on Miers looks, but hey- that’s the gossipy wench in me. I do not consider myself remotely qualified to comment on her career or political views.
Carry on with the political debate.
Please note, I don’t know yet whether this is a good choice or not. It is still pretty early in the process.
I do think, though, that an insistence on prior judicial experience as a requirement for this position, to the exclusion of all other experience, not only isn’t legally required but has led in recent years to an insular Court far removed from a wide range of experience held by society as a whole.
That’s why a noteworthy thing to mention here is that Miers has held elected office in the past, on the Dallas city council. There is only one other member of the Court with experience as an elected official, and that is O’Connor herself.
In the past, elected officials found their way onto the Court more easily, as a review of the biographies of the men in my list would show.
Is she the BEST choice? That’s the question. Is there really no one in the entire country who is a little more qualified than this career ball washer for Bush.
Arguing from willful ignorance? I wouldn’t have figured you’d do this, Diogenes?
Rehnquist was the Assistant AG under Nixon for three years (they were so close, Nixon frequently misspelled and mispronounced Rehnquist’s name) and White was Deputy AG under Kennedy for two years. That was the extent of their working for the president who picked them.
Miers, on the other hand, is Bush’s personal lawyer, was appointed by him to chair the Texas Lottery Commission in 1995, picked by him to be his Staff Secretary in 2001 when he entered office, picked by him to be Deputy Chief of Staff in 2003, then elevated to White House Counsel in 2004. This goes far beyond what Rehnquist and White did within their respective administrations.
I have seen no evidence that Miers is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. She’s spent the last decade working as nothing but a political appointee and only one of those years actually had something to do with law. Unlike Roberts, Rehnquist or White, she’s never clerked for the Supreme Court, nor has she ever even argued a case before the supreme court (to my knowledge).
Sorry, but there’s no comparison. Miers has no place on the Supreme Court. She’s just a Bush crony.
In your opinion Dio, and I’m asking this honestly seeking an answer, how would one go about proving (as well as anything so subjective can be said to be proven) that a non-judge is qualified for a Supreme Court Associate Justice slot? Would that process differ significantly from the process one would use to qualify a candidate for, say, a federal appeals court slot? And if so, how?
Now that you mention the word “insular”, I think it’s a perfect word to describe our President, who seems to live in his own little world where nobody around him challenges him and where he values political patronage above all else.
Come on, this woman called Bush the smartest person she knew. Either she doesn’t get out much, or she’s a fawning sycophant. Even you probably know better than to say such a foolish thing.
This is only MHO, but I would say that lack of judicial experience should be an automatic disqualification for consideration. If I can see an exception, it might be for a law professor or someone who can demonstrate some real depth of constitutional scholarship.
There is absolutely nothing remarkable about Miers’ credentials other than her relationship to Bush. The country is filled with former presidents of state Bars. It’s also filled with experienced federal judges. I refuse to believe that this woman is the best Bush can find to serve on the highest court. This is just cronyism at its worst. It’s an insult to the court and an insult to all the more qualified candidates who are available.