Replies

You know, the more I think about it, the more I believe that having "experienced" judges on the court is exactly the problem. The Constitution is a fairly straightforward document and any reasonably intelligent person with a dollop of common sense can interpret its meaning, and yet we have the "experienced" judges finding all sorts of rights and restrictions hidden in the penumbras, rather than simply going with what the document actually says.

At least half of the legal training a lawyer receives is not just to know the law, but to be able to argue in favor of your desired outcome by using the law. This means that, at some level, you are trained to twist words and meanings in order to convince others that the written law means what you need it to mean in order to get what you want. Why would we want someone who is accustomed to manipulating meanings of words to be the final interpreter of the only true safeguard of our rights? Perhaps it would be better if Supreme Court justices were not allowed to be lawyers.

With that in mind, I'd say anyone who dismisses Miers as unqualified solely on her lack of judgeship is saying that they want the shredding of our Constitution to continue. Now, Miers is still a lawyer, so she is still tainted and trained to manipulate, but what is crazy is that many people are saying she's not enough of a lawyer, while I say we need people who are far less lawyerly.

"many people are saying she's not enough of a lawyer, while I say we need people who are far less lawyerly."

RIGHT ON! I am from a family full of lawyers and the smartest person of all of us dropped out of college and started his own business. It's about time we got something other than the paper dolls they always put up.

The Constitution is a fairly straightforward document and any reasonably intelligent person with a dollop of common sense can interpret its meaning, and yet we have the "experienced" judges finding all sorts of rights and restrictions hidden in the penumbras, rather than simply going with what the document actually says.

isn't that the dang truth, you have a ton of nonlawyers on this board who fancy themselves constitutional scholars with all kinds of intellectual insights into constitutional law. and a goodly portion of them are screaming blue murder about this woman.

Now, Miers is still a lawyer, so she is still tainted and trained to manipulate, but what is crazy is that many people are saying she's not enough of a lawyer, while I say we need people who are far less lawyerly.

Exactly what I said back in post 101. How hard can it be to interpret the constitution, if you are going to do it strictly? I am not saying Harriet is the best pick, but to think she is an incompetent know-nothing is plain wrong.