Is it sexism, or what is the real difference between Miers and Roberts?

[jobycom]

Miers and Roberts are both career attornies. Roberts was on the bench two years before becoming chief justice, but most of his government experience was an advocate for the White House.

This is little different from Miers. Career attorney, no judicial experience, yet some experience with Bush as an advocate.

The main criticism of Roberts was his ideology, with some people bemoaning his lack of experience, but he was still talked about by the right as a brilliant mind, and that wasn't challenged hard by the left.

Criticism of Miers are focusing on her lack of experience and the possible weakness of her ideology, but her lack of experience is a big issue, and that is turning into a criticism of her as an intellectual lightweight.

Is their sexism? Frankly, I don't see that Roberts is all that smart, or Miers all that dumb. They look the same to me. I'm not defending Miers, mind you, or saying that our reaction has been sexist. I'm saying that the media and the right wing perceptions of these candidates might be sexist. DUers know that both are idiots.

[bryant69]

1. Well the difference is that

Miers has been a board room attorney and Roberts has been a court room attorney. While he had only served a short time as a judge, he argued in front of the Supreme Court many times (most lawyers are lucky if they get one shot). Miers on the other hand had spent most of her career in administrative positions.

I think they really are differently qualified, and while it's enjoyable to point out sexism I don't think it qualifies in this case.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[unpossibles]

2. well, personally I am strongly against both

I hated Roberts' politics and the stance he took on his case record. He had more experience (barely) as a judge, but I think both are blatant cronyism and were picked for being right-wing lapdogs. Miers was a bit sneakier and under the radar, so I think they thought she would fly by unchallenged.

Personally, they both suck and are dangerous to America and to our freedoms. It's such an obvious payback for getting Bush in office (Roberts) and keeping him there (Miers).

[yurbud]

3. Roberts had a fig leaf of experience and even his Federalist Society

membership that he "forgot" shows some thought on law even if it's wrong.

Miers is more obviously the equivalent of opening the phone book and calling the first lawyer.

[rolleitreks]

4. Wrong-headed maybe, but not idiots.

Roberts graduated with a distinguished record from the Harvard Law, clerked for Rehnquist and argued somewhere around thirty cases before the Supreme Court. He has demonstrated an impressive grasp of constitutional law.

Meirs on the other hand graduated froma second-tier law school, and while her career has been impressive by most standards, she has not demonstrated the knowledge or powers of legal analysis demanded by the court. (Yes, others have fallen short, too . . )

She may yet have a chance to prove she has those abilities before the Senate.

[unblock]

5. personally i think the biggest difference is katrina and "brownie"

because of katrina, bush FINALLY got some long-overdue bad press. it suddenly became ok for the press to let a little bit of truth come out.

because of brownie, people know the word "crony" and recognize it as a bad thing.

whatever miers credential and/or skills, she is certainly the ultimate crony, and so the media has a rather negative view because of that.

[crispini]

6. From what I've read, Roberts' experience clerking before the court

was fairly extensive. He has experience in the area specificially needed on the SCOTUS, Constitutional Law. Miers, OTOH, has plenty of experience in Corporate, and litigation, but none in the area of Constitutional law.

Kind of akin to getting a proctologist to do your facelift, from what I understand. :evilgrin: Different areas of specialization.

[kenny blankenship]

7. But a perfectly good move if

all you wanted to do was to put a hardcore corporate shill (and your own personal atty.) onto the Supreme Court bench.

[crispini]

8. Exactamente.

You know, strangely, this whole little episode is making me feel better about some of the Republicans. The Roberts nomination is pretty clearly cronyism on the Bush administration's part. And I am kind of proud of the R's who are standing up and saying as much. It goes to show that they are not all mindless Bushbots.

[ozarkvet]

9. Strict Constructionist vs. Right-Wing Activists

While the Republicans have traditionally been the ones complaining about "activists" judges, activist judges on the right are equally dangerous to the Left.

Roberts (appears to be) conservative, but intellectually honest. A William F. Buckely type, with whom you probably disagree, but he has some legit points.

He will probably err on the side of "let the people/legislature/states decide." A strong libertarian bend.

Miers is pretty smart as well --- worked her way up in a large firm, and, elite dispersions aside, went to a fine law school, graduating near the top.

BUT she is a conservative activist, and will run over the people, legislatures, states for her ideology.

E.g., Roberts might look at Roe v. Wade and say --- gee, the Constitution is silent, each state needs to figure this out, however they have it set up. Most states would probably come up with something consistent with what their populations like. Solution = move to Blue State.

Miers, in contrast, will find a "right to life" of the "unborn child" that is violated by abortion, and thereby declare abortion unconstitutional. Nowhere to run, then.

It is the danger of judicial activism --- on both sides --- and the double-edged sword of looking to courts to solve problems.

People pick on Thomas and various others on the Supreme Court, but, since Kelo (the "all your houses belong to us" ruling), I have really been thinking about the role of the judiciary and government and how it needs to be reigned in, big time.

[patcox2]

10. There is an enormous difference, a huge difference.

Roberts is a conservative ideologue, has been since the get-go. Member of the federalist society, active in republican administrations going way back. He is a committed conservative ideologue.

Miers is a personal follower of Bush, who appears to have been distinctly not a conservative up until her personal relationship with Bush developed. Thats a very different thing. Roberts is probably staunchly loyal to conservative ideals, and would be likely to rule againist Bush, for example, if forced to choose between personal loyalty and ideological purity.

Miers would be far more likely to roll over for Bush every time.

But, to the extent Miers has any personal political beliefs, she appears to have been a liberal for most of her life, and would likely show that in her rulings, at least in cases in which Bush has a personal interest.

[MN ChimpH8R]

11. Their professional resumes

could hardly be more different. Like him or not (and I don't trust him one bit) Roberts has a sterling academic resume, Supreme Court clerkship experience, and has argued many, many cases before the SCOTUS. He is clearly knowlegeable about constitutional law. Not necessarily right, but knowledgeable.

Miers had a middling academic resume, clerked only for a federal district court, and has no track record of arguing big cases in any court much less the SCOTUS. Were Chimpy nominating her to a federal district judgeship, no one would be up in arms. Such a position is an acceptable political patronage payback. District Court judges have Courts of Appeal and the SCOTUS to correct their errors. Nothing in Miers' career suggests that she has the intellectual firepower or experience (judicial or otherwise) to serve on the nation's highest court.

FWIW I am a lawyer and went to the same law school as Roberts.