I’d dispute your dispute unless you feel that giving women and minorities equal treatment is the only thing the court has done. And “equal treatment” is an oversimplification, since we’re also talking about AA laws, which can reasonably be described as giving some groups more than equal treatment.
Minty, I must bow to your knowledge, and Dewey’s knowledge, of Ms Miers’ standing, experience and reputation in Texas and Dallas. You are there and I’m not. My point is that there are lots of people, female judges, lawyers and professors, who are better equipped to go to the Supreme Court, even female judges, lawyers and professors of a distinct conservative/reactionary/authoritarian bent, than Ms Miers. I will not be accused of harboring a bias against women lawyers (although that accusation hasn’t been made yet, I feel it coming); for Pete’s sake my daughter is a big firm female lawyer. None the less, it seems to me that nominees to the federal courts must be among the best in the profession – people with a record of excellence, scholarship and intelligence. It may well be that Ms Miers is intelligent, scholarly and excellent but I sure haven’t seen anything that suggests that her intelligence, scholarship and excellence is above the middling or that you couldn’t haphazardly fling a rock at the assembled female partners in a big Dallas (or Denver, or Kansas City, or Minneapolis, or Atlanta or Newark, NJ) law firm and hit someone equally or better suited for the job.
Somehow it is ironic that the new Chief Justice appears to have set his sights on the US Sup Ct when he was in junior high school and worked assiduously to get the right jobs, meet the right people, attend the right school, cultivate the right friends to get there while Ms Miers seems to have gotten the nomination for no reason other than she was handy. When you seek to reward a political follower you don’t send them to the Sup Ct. You give them a nice cushy job over at the Court of Claims or make them ambassador to some tropical paradise like Bermuda.
In all candor, I must confess that when this President hands me what seems to be a pig in a poke, a candidate with no significant public record, and asks me to trust his judgement I suspect that I am about to get a highly unpleasant colon examination. When the Rev Mr Dobson announces his satisfaction with Ms Miers, I start to think the fix is in. But then my theory is that Rev Dobson is going to get the same medical device shoved up his ideological rectum that I am anticipating.
On the trial lawyer thing – I’m getting just a little tired of seeing Ms Miers lauded as a littigator when every thing I know suggest she was far from being among the front rank. I’m out here in East Harness Buckle trying auto accidents and divorces and mortgage foreclosures. I suppose I have as much claim to that title as anybody but no one has suggested I’m Sup Ct material, or even Court of Claims material. Somebody has to call “bullshit” on that one.
You and Dewey and Sua Sponte have called it right by saying Ms Miers owes her nomination to here connection to the President. That doesn’t make her Sup Ct material. The only solace I can draw from this is that it could be a lot worse – Bush could have nominated Bricker, or, God help us all, Art Bonfield*
*Arthur Bonfield was/is a Con Law prof that Minty and I and others suffered through. He was very new at the game when I had him. The man had a voice that can scratch bronze…
I don’t have any quibble with the notion that there are many, many people who are more qualified than Ms. Miers. I take issue only with the claim that she is unaccomplished, run-of-the-mill, etc.
I do not, frankly, believe that there is any magic level of qualifications for a seat on the Supreme Court. There are literally thousands of people who could perform the job well. I would submit that Ms. Miers is, when compared to most such persons, far less impressive than average when it comes to her resume. All that means is that we need to take a very close look at her record, her skills, and her philosophies when it comes time for the Senate to give its advice and consent (or lack thereof).
Also, I never had to sit through Bonfield. Be grateful you never had to sit through Clinton, who was a thoroughly insufferable ass.
I should like to move that all such Dopers who will confess to being attorneys be called upon to swear, by the Sacred Cite of Cecil, whether the name of Ms. M was, at any point in time, on their short list of persons best qualified and most desireable for the position being offered to her.
Can I ask a follow up question? How many of you have even so much as heard of her outside of her relationship to Bush?
(Readers notice: set post credibility detection apparatus to “lawyer”.)
Had the public known much about Byron White when he was appointed? I think most people remembered him as a football star.
Some of you folks seem to be insisting on qualifications that simply don’t exist.
Of course, IANAL. Won’t stop me from commenting, though.
Of course not. But like I said, there are literally thousands of people who would make for perfectly solid Supreme Court justices. Professional accomplishment is not the be-all and end-all of qualification for the Court. When Reagan picked O’Connor, I doubt she would have been in anybody’s top 100 list of most-accomplished candidates, and she turned out to be the most important person on the Court for the last 20 years.
I had. But mostly as Hecht’s on-again off-again girlfriend. 
I’m not at all sure that is a fair question, friend. The great unwashed doesn’t really know much of anything. I think I knew that White was Bobby Kennedy’s number two at the Justice Department, but I was a sophomore in college when he was appointed. As a practicing lawyer it is my professional obligation to pay attention to who the leading lights of this racket are, at least in my own state and federal circuit. It is sort of a “know your adversary” thing. I sure knew who Judge Bork was before he came to general public attention with his nomination. Same with Harry Blackmun and Justice Marshall. I sure went out and found out who Ruth Ginsberg, and Justice Souter and Breyer were. What I found out was that they had distinguished records, albeit in the case of Souter on an obscure state high court. I inquired after all supreme court and 8th Cir nominees. Most I applauded at distinguished lawyers and judges. Some scared me and some struck me as political hacks.
With regard to Ms. Miers and elucidators question, I had never heard of her before about 7:30 Monday morning. Now I’m trying to find out something.
Actually, Justice Blackmun had eleven years on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (1959-1970) before Nixon appointed him to the Supreme Court.
I stand corrected. Thank you, Councilor.
Ahem.
I would be a FINE Justice, I’ll have you know.
Outside of his thin record of opinion on this or that issue, were there any serious doubts that Roberts was intellectually prepared to do his job?
As in FINE that justice another $1,000 for making bets online?
Oh, and Spavined, thats the foremost expert on the Iowa APA you’re talking about. As he’ll remind you, over, and over, and over and over.
You’d certainly be fine for my heart rate while reading the morning paper.
After a few days of thinking about it, I’m beginning to lean toward the view that Miers is not qualified - that she does not have the knowledge or experience a Supreme Court justice needs. That’s a view that I never held for a second about Roberts. I’m still open to being convinced.
Meanwhile, I shall thoroughly enjoy the sniping and backbiting going on in the Republican camp.
He certainly was prepared. But I don’t think that has anything to do with the fact that he was a sitting judge.
Clinton’s first choice when he nominated Justice Ginsburg was actually Mario Cuomo. Would anyone have questioned his qualifications? Keep in mind, the man wasn’t a judge, and never had been one.
While I politcally disagree with you quite a bit, I think you might make a good justice. I’d have to know a bit more about your career to give you my endorsement*. But it would be incredibly cool to have a Doper become a member of SCOTUS. I’d guess you’d have to refrain from posting in GD if that were an actual career goal, though.
*This and $2 might get you a cup of Starbucks coffee.
I suspect the conservatives are pissed because the Supreme Court is not EXTREMELY right wing like it’s leadership and commentators. They have no more fondness for moderates than for conservatives. Perhaps the problem with the Supreme Court is that once you get a lifetime sinecure, you don’t need to truckle to your party masters any more.
You mean things like torture? That explains why we haven’t ever tortured prison … woopsies!
But if one of us were President and nominated you for a Supreme Court vacancy, would that be cronyism? 
An independent judiciary is a problem?
Hamlet, he is not only the world’s foremost expert, he wrote the damn’d Administrative Procedures Act. Still he hasn’t learned to pronounce “cockroach” and has no idea how the home team is doing in the Big Ten (not well). I know nothing of this Clinton Minty speaks of but it is no surprise when law profs are pedantic bores – the visiting prof who is all offended by Hayden Frey’s dusty rose locker room, for instance.