What are Miers' professional qualifications?

[Ilsa]

The best thing I can say about her is that she's probably a good administrator. I can't see that anything she has done has prepared her to be an exceptional jurist. She isn't a law professor or judge, and I haven't heard that she's argued a buch of cases before the SCOTUS. Breaking glass ceilings for women is nice, but I don't see how it has prepped her for this new job.

[Botany]

1. She scrubbed bush TANG records in 1998 & 1999

:bounce:

She has made her bones w/ the Texas Mafia.

[onenote]

2. Lots of S Ct Justices haven't "prepped" for the job

How does being a professor "prep" you for the job any more than being a litigator? Frankly, Robert Bork was a professor, a judge, a solicitor general who argued cases before the SCOTUS -- doesn't mean I'd want him on the court.

Earl Warren was governor of California -- how did that "prep" him to be Chief Justice?

I don't see where having a court made up exclusively of "scholars" or former judges would improve the court.

onenote

[Jersey Devil]

3. Right! Let's appoint some landscapers or massage therapists

Why would we ever want someone with superior knowledge of the law and the constitution?

I might even consider supporting a meteorologist.

[Radio_Lady]

7. Wrong specialty! Let's nominate an astrologist! Especially if that

means a Republican trained in ASS-trology!

[Botany]

5. Warren was also California's A.G.

Either some judicial experience or arguing a case in front of SCOTUS
are not too high of a standard to ask.

Has she any experience w/ cases on the federal level as in arguing them?

[Jersey Devil]

8. Warren argued for Japanese-American internment in WWII

Talk about stealth!!

[Botany]

9. and later he said that was the biggest mistake of his life.

In both his writings and public speeches.

Warren also did some wonderful things on the Supreme Court.

Warren, Marshall, Brennan, Blackman, White, and so on.

Studs!

[onenote]

15. Did Earl Warren have judicial experience or argue a case before the SCOTUS

I know he didn't have judicial experience. Would be surprised if he argued a Supreme Court case (although he might have).

Being a state AG -- not sure why that's more of a qualfication for S CT than being an experienced, highly regarded litigator. I'm in Virginia and the current state AG -- Jerry Kilgore, who is running for governor -- is a complete idiot. Wouldn't trust him with a gavel.

And even US AG's -- remember these names: John Mitchell, Ed Meese, William French Smith -- think their service as AG makes them "more qualified" to a SCOTUS justice than, for example, Vernon Jordan?

onenote

[Czolgosz]

10. The advantage of having nominees with a judicial or scholarly background

is that you can get some feeling for their guiding legal philosophy. I agree that no sane person wants a court loaded with Borks, but it was still good that he had an academic and judicial background because it gave the Senate insight into his activist judicial philosophy which enabled them to fairly assess his qualifications for the job (which he didn't get so the system seemed to work in that instance).

[CoffeeCat]

4. Wasn't she head of the International Arabian Horse Association?

Just curious.

;)

[Czolgosz]

11. No, she doesn't even have experience judging Arabian horses.

[CoffeeCat]

14. That's odd, don't you think?

I thought all of Junior's appointees had to have some experience with Arabian Horses.

[AValdoux]

6. I think this is the issue.

We shouldn't oppose her because of her conservative views. She is not qualified plain & simple. We should make her the poster child of Bush's horrible choices in nominees. Miers, Brownie, etc. To bring up her a views just polarizes the discussion again. The RWingers will rally behind Bush to defend him from the evil satan worshipping democrats.


AValdoux

[Ilsa]

12. I think she is probably a wonderful manager and administrator.

I suspect these qualities helped her break those glass ceilings. But I have concerns about "how she thinks" when the only thing we are given is to "trust the pResident's judgement," which we know is addled by substance abuse, ignorance, greed, self-serving interests, and dishonesty.

[onenote]

13. respectfully disagree

The argument that she is "not qualified plain and simple" doesn't hold water. Her qualifications are certainly comparable to those of Lewis Powell. The fact that she isn't a judge or a professor doesn't make her unqualified. By that standard of qualifications, Robert Bork is the most qualified man on earth to be a SCOTUS justice: professor, acting attorney general, solicitor general, federal court judge. No thanks.

Look at it this way: if Clinton had nominated Vernon Jordan, would anyone on this list claim Clinton had nominated an unqualified crony? Don't think so.

Also, let's assume we were successful in "beating" Miers nomination by making the argument that its her qualfications, not her judicial philosophy or temperment or her ethics or whatever we can find to oppose her with. Presumably the only way we do that is to filibuster. Who do you think the next nominee will be? It'll be another Roberts -- someone with "credentials" but just as, if not moreso, in the Scalia/Thomas camp. Then what. We turn around and say, its not about qualifications its about positions? And we filibuster? That's not gonna sell with the average, barely paying attention American. It'll give the repugs something to talk about going into the 2006 elections other than the war, or the hurricane fiasco, or gas prices. They can talk about obstructionist dems who won't give nominees to the highest court in the land an "up or down vote." Yeah, its a stupid argument. But it probably works.

onenote