I think this is a very good thing, assuming you want the court to lean a little more conservative. I also think that was the real issuse, not so much that she wasn't 'qualified'. Qualified for what? The ability to throw a conservative tie-breaker? In fact, there are no specific qualifications for Associate Supreme Court Justice.
Quote:
Wikipedia-
The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court. In fact it does not even specify citizenship or age as it does for the executive and legislative branches. However, Presidents normally nominate individuals who have prior legal experience. Typically, most nominees have judicial experience, either at the federal or state level. Several nominees have formerly served on federal Courts of Appeals, especially the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Another source of Supreme Court nominees is the federal executive branch—in particular, the Department of Justice. Other potential nominees include members of Congress and academics. On the current Supreme Court, seven Justices previously served on federal courts (including three on the D.C. Circuit); two served on state courts; three were former law school professors; and three held full time positions in the federal executive branch.
Nominees to the Supreme Court, as well as to lower federal courts, are evaluated by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary. The panel is composed of fifteen federal judges (but not Supreme Court Justices), including at least one from each federal judicial circuit. The body assesses the nominee "solely to professional qualifications: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament," and offers a rating of "well qualified," "qualified," or "not qualified." The opinions of the committee bind neither the President nor the Senate; however, they are generally taken into account.
I think this is a very good thing, assuming you want the court to lean a little more conservative. I also think that was the real issuse, not so much that she wasn't 'qualified'. Qualified for what? The ability to throw a conservative tie-breaker? In fact, there are no specific qualifications for Associate Supreme Court Justice.
I agree. It's scary now to think of who he's going to nominate next. Gonzalez? He thinks the Constitution is an outdated rag. It's going to be interesting.
The big stink had nothing to do with her qualifications. It's that she didn't lean far enough right. It's pretty bad when your own base is pissed about your nomination.
And even though there are no real qualifications I believe that the nominee should at least have some judicial experience and know something about the Constitution.
Wait. Did I just agree with dholly on a political matter?
Edited to correct my brain fart with the quotes.
__________________
I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country; the least encroachment on those invaluable privileges makes my blood boil. Benjamin Franklin
Yea I guess there is no real qualification for the spot but still like ryno said someone who's in the seat of the supreme court needs some judicial experience.
I think this is a very good thing, assuming you want the court to lean a little more conservative. I also think that was the real issuse, not so much that she wasn't 'qualified'. Qualified for what? The ability to throw a conservative tie-breaker? In fact, there are no specific qualifications for Associate Supreme Court Justice.
I agree. It's scary now to think of who he's going to nominate next. Gonzalez? He thinks the Constitution is an outdated rag. It's going to be interesting.
The big stink had nothing to do with her qualifications. It's that she didn't lean far enough right. It's pretty bad when your own base is pissed about your nomination.
And even though there are no real qualifications I believe that the nominee should at least have some judicial experience and know something about the Constitution.
My girlfriend is a lawer and she says lawyers are nominated for Judicial positions all the time without having any prior judicial experience.
What's surprising for me is that Conservatives thought she wasn't conservative enough, particularly in regards to abortion. I remember reading that Miers told a conservative group in 1989, and as part of a survery, that she opposed abortion and would "actively support" legislation to severely restrict the procedure should the Supreme Court overturn Roe vs. Wade. This was when she was running for the Dallas City Council. http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat...0/20040874.pdf
What more did conservatives want? I thought she was conservative enough. Was she qualified? She seems to be an accomplished lawyer. I dunno, dare I ask who's next?
What more did conservatives want? I thought she was conservative enough. Was she qualified? She seems to be an accomplished lawyer. I dunno, dare I ask who's next?
I bet Bush sticks with a woman. And, if he uses the same tactic he did in naming Roberts (picking from the pool of his judicial nominees that have already made it through the Judicial Hearing Committee on the Hill), I'll guess either Carolyn B. Kuhl, Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown get the nod.
I agree. It's scary now to think of who he's going to nominate next. Gonzalez? He thinks the Constitution is an outdated rag. It's going to be interesting.
The big stink had nothing to do with her qualifications. It's that she didn't lean far enough right. It's pretty bad when your own base is pissed about your nomination.
And even though there are no real qualifications I believe that the nominee should at least have some judicial experience and know something about the Constitution.
Wait. Did I just agree with dholly on a political matter?
Edited to correct my brain fart with the quotes.
I can't imagine the nominee being a guy ... it's an unofficial quota ... it's gonna be another woman. It would be nice to see a hispanic woman nominated but I don't see that happening.
Her withdraw kinda scares me too ... I can't help but wonder if this was in any small part planned out ... hate to go into conspiracy theories but who could have seriously thought she would get appointed without a lot of harsh criticism ... mabe a deflection technique to make the next nominee less questionable? I dunno, I've been up all night reading supreme court cases and writing briefs ... my mind isn't all together right now ... need sleep
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.
Miers
