Excellent. Put it this way: if he weren’t a state supreme court justice, his appeal to women would be stuck in a much lower venue.
In other words, she did the bulk of the work of what litigators actually do.
And I challenge this assertion anyway: Meier practiced law for a long, long time before her public service jobs, and rose high and fast in that profession. I find it hard to believe that she never once tried a case in all that time.
And even if she hadn’t – so what? Trial work is very, very different from appellate advocacy.
She was the first woman ever hired at Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell (now Locke, Liddell & Sapp). She became their first woman partner. She was the first woman to hold the chairmanship of that firm. And that’s one of the largest law firms in the state. How is she’s a “follower” again?
(Those of you suggesting she’d be pulled around by the nose apparently don’t realize how much strength of character it would take to be a female Dallas lawyer in a large firm in the 1970s.)
She may not be an oil and gas lawyer, but she’s hardly “run of the mill” anything. Some of the older lawyers in my office know Ms. Meier personally, and have had occasion to see her at work. She apparently cuts an imposing figure.
Which isn’t to say she’d be a great justice. It only means she’s apparently a great lawyer, and that people trying to pooh-pooh her credentials in that regard are sadly misinformed.
I wouldn’t bet on that. Hecht is a firebreathing social conservative, but he is also quite a charmer. Other folks on that court have had a lot more trouble getting dates.
If the democrats like her, more or less, why is it rolling over? If Bush nominated some firebrand (say, Roy Moore) that would obviously infuriate the left, and the dems didn’t do everything in their power to stop it, then I would say they rolled over.
Personally I find her fealty to Bush to be disturbing, and to a lesser extent the bald-faced cronyism behind the pick. Hell of a career trajectory for her, though.
Both sides have been ratcheting up for years for a fight to the death and suddenly there’s nothing to fight about and it seems some people are more pissed about that than they are about the actual picks.
eh…whatever - as long as she doesn’t refer to him as “my husband”. People are going to start thinking Georgie’s got some poly thing going on. No wonder he exercises so much.
Hey, how about a non-lawyer for the Supreme Court. Since experience as a judge is, seemingly, not horribly relevant, let’s just pick the 1,000,000 person who goes through WalMart and appoint them. That person will have certain “life experiences” and will bring in a fresh view of the law that the current Supreme Court may be sorely lacking.
I disagree. While it is easy to degrade what appellate justices actually do, there is no teacher like experience. Having to weigh vastly important issues, having to deal with research, legal reasoning, and an understanding of issues, and actually working with 8 differing legal minds is not something that comes naturally. The familiarity with a broad expanse of law comes from… oh, I’m just guessing here, maybe sitting on the federal bench for awhile.I certainly doesn’t come from being a corporate advocate, a lottery commisioner, or a staff secretary. It’s extremely troubling that it appears Miers was chosen, not for her experience, legal acument, or track record, but rather because she’s an advocate for the man appointing her and because she has no experience on which to judge the nomination.
And that’s what I’m afraid she is, an advocate, not a judge. I have yet to here one example where she has disagreed with a position taken by Dubya, where she has challenged his tortured reading of the Constitution, or where she has acted against his wishes. It appears to me, in my limited research, that it is simply another example of yet another appointment of a crony.
Would you expect to hear of a White House counsel going against the White House? Is that sort of thing done?
Well, I pointed out in the other thread a few justices from recent decades that hadn’t gone throught the now traditional career path of a federal bench appointment before a Supreme Court nomination. These include Justices White, Jackson, Frankfurter, Black, Reed, Brandeis, Powell, Douglas, and Chief Justices Warren and Rehnquist.
So clearly this isn’t a hard and fast rule, or at least it wasn’t in the past.
If it was done, it was done privately, and we wouldn’t hear about it.
Properly so, too.
I should clarify that my quote you’re responding to was itself a response to this:
And so I wasn’t proposing a course of action for Dems with respect to Mier, but rather about being an opposition party in general.
But since you asked:
I’m disturbed by Mehlman’s suggestion that she’ll be a vote for Bush in any GWoT matters that come before the Supremes, and I question whether she’ll be able to separate herself, anytime soon, from thinking and acting like she’s still part of the Bush Administration.
I think the combination of that and her extraordinarily weak qualifications are enough reason for the Dems to try to keep her off the Court.
Good point. Surely we all remember the disgraceful decision made by Republican appointees in Bush v. Gore. Cheap, sleazy Republican hacks are already far too well represented on the Supreme Court.
You think a good Republican hack comes cheap? 
Is anyone in this thread contending that the Democrats will reject her?
(I’d like to think so, if only to salve my wounded pride for the prediction I made a while ago. But it doesn’t seem likely now).
It’s possible that they might smell blood in the water if the hearings make it seem like the “unqualified” charge will stick, and if they think they can get enough conservative Repubs to vote against her because they have no assurance that she will be a social conservative, or enough moderate Repubs to vote against her because they feel she’s unqualified.
Of course that’s a dangerous game, as Bush might nominate an extreme conservative judge to placate the hardcore conservatives and punish the Dems.
In anycase, it’s a lot more interesting then the Roberts nomination was.
To her credentials, I would like to add an observation about her most recent known duties and her success at execution.
She was tasked by President Bush with finding a suitable candidate for the vacant Supreme Court Justice position. At this she appears to have failed. (Similar to Mr. Chaney’s task of finding a suitable Vice President candidate in 2000.)
What are we to make of this curious pattern with Mr. Bush? If she had presented herself as suitable in the process, then that would have seemed the very definition of presumptuousness. If Mr. Bush had considered her a potential candidate why then did he assign her the task? If she was unable to present Mr. Bush with compelling candidates then she didn’t do her job. If Mr. Bush did not seriously consider the candidates she did present then that suggests he was not serious about the process, was only going through the motions until such time as he would choose her anyway? …oh bother.
I don’t expect they will, but I believe they should.
Worthless fucking Democrats.
Not entirely. But I wish the sensible Dems would start flexing some muscle.
Do you realize there is not one serious nationwide political figure that opposes the death penalty? I find that frightening.
How the hell did you get from what I said to that?? I was responding to a post in which it was argued that Miers’ lack of trial experience was a problem. My point is that appearing before an appellate court is very, very different from trying a case. The Supreme Court does not try cases; it considers disputes about the interpretation and application of laws. So lack of trial experience isn’t particularly relevant.
Again, I’m not denigrating what appellate judges do. I was disagreeing with the claim that lack of trial experience would make the transition to the Supreme Court more difficult. If you have had (a great deal of) experience considering, researching, and debating a broad range of legal issues, you will not have much trouble transitioning to the Supreme Court.
I’m not claiming that Miers has that experience - indeed, my suspicion is that she does not. But again, I was responding to an particular argument, and you have someone “transitioned” that into a ringing endorsement of Ms. Miers.
Sua
Actually, my (very preliminary) impression is that she will be rejected - though I doubt through straight Democratic action. I think a certain number of wacko Senate Dems will oppose her because she’s Bush’s nominee, a certain number of red-meat Pubbies will oppose her because she ain’t bloody enough, and a certain number of Dems and Pubbies will oppose her because she just ain’t impressive enough. And when you add them up, the number of opposers will be at least 51.
Sua
But wasn’t she the one who suggested Roberts? And we don’t know that she recommended herself, only that Bush picked her. Is there any evidence that she put herself at the top of the list (or even on the list for that matter) to Bush?
Why? The death penalty is widely popular in the US. How would you expect someone to be a serious national figure if he opposed something that the vast majority of Americans favor? That’s not the fault* of the Democrats-- it’s the fault of the American people.
*using that term losely, of course. More in the sense of “cause”, than blame.
It only makes sense for them to reject her if they think they’ll be able to get Bush to nominate someone better (from their perspecitve). Seeing as how some Democrats actually seem to like her and some conservatives don’t, I think that’s very unlikely.
I think it’s favored by about two-thirds of the people. So if we say that 30% of people are against it, I’d say there are much less popular opinions that still have the support of major national figures.