Miers and Rehnquist: Neither Were Judges Before SCOTUS Nomination!

Oct/13/05 | jveritas

[jveritas]

One of the first and most important arguments that the anti-Miers camp tells us that Miers is not qualified because she never served as a judge. Well either the anti-Miers conservatives are hypocrites or they are totally ignorant because the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, one of the most conservative justices ever, was never a judge before he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Nixon.

Here is a Link for the biography of late Chief Justice Rehnquist.

http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/rehnquist.htm

[Racehorse]

The stupidity of supporting this nominee is astounding.  And, if she gets on the court and doesn't work out, those doing so are accountable for the damage done.

Accountable, how?

Do you mean finger waging "I told you so" accountability, or something else?

And if you're wrong about her, how should you be held accountable?

[Cboldt]

I suspect Bush knows he won't face any more elections, so political support may not mean that much to him.

I think this is moving from the realm of the present political scene into the realm of legacy.

[Bigun]

Oh! BTW: In case you missed it, I, like the founders apparently, DO NOT believe that one need be, in any fashion, a "Legal Scholar" in order to be able to reasonably do those things.

[Bigun]

Oh! BTW: In case you missed it, I, like the founders apparently, DO NOT believe that one need be, in any fashion, a "Legal Scholar" in order to be able to reasonably do those things.

[Cboldt]

I, like the founders apparently, DO NOT believe that one need be, in any fashion, a "Legal Scholar" in order to be able to reasonably do those things.

I agree with that in principle. I have no quarrel with Ms. Miers general legal ability either. But I have reasons to doubt her acumen and sense of "how the founders intended the government to operate" meet with my approval. Not that it matters - my bigger complaint is the use of "stealth" to subvert what should be a transparent public process.

[NCLaw441]

I agree about this being the realm of legacy, but I don't know how much this president is thinking about it. I think he just wants the results he wants. He obviously is not particularly effective from a political perspective. In fact, I suspect many voted for him just BECAUSE he didn't appear to be so political.

[Bigun]

...my bigger complaint is the use of "stealth" to subvert what should be a transparent public process.

Please be kind enough to explain to me just how "stealth" enters into this except in the minds of the liberal media.

I seems to me that our system charges the president to make a nomination and he has done so. It now falls to the senate to render, or not, it's consent.

I see no "stealth" in any of that so please be kind enough to enlighten this ignorant old country boy!

[Reagan Man]

Agreed. Bush is neither emotional or confrontational and Roberts was too smart to get into the gutter with Senate liberals. Many on the rightwing were itching for a fight. Especially when Bush didn't name a conservative firebrand to replace Rehnquist --- ie.Luttig, McConnell, Brown. Jones. When these conservative fighters, aka."hotheads" and the many conservative pundits, finally got a good whiff of Roberts great intellect and keen legal mind, they realized picking a fight with Bush over Roberts wasn't a good idea. They hopped aboard the Roberts train and went along for the ride. Then here comes Harriet Miers. No Luttig. No McConnell. No Jones. No Brown. The hotheads said, good time for fight. LOL Now they look petty and foolish. IMHO at least. The hearings may turn up some damaging stuff on Miers. For now, Miers is a lock for confirmation. Unless of course she decides to step down. And I don't see that happening.

[NCLaw441]

I wish we could avoid subverting what should be a transparent public process, too, but we have a GOP-controlled senate that cannot deliver full support to its president on nominees. Instead, we have a gang of 14 who control things.

[Racehorse]

. . . especially if Miers is confirmed and turns out to be as conservative as Bush seems to think she is.

Not just Bush, it would seem.

Especially in consideration of how frequently Miers' lack of connection with the Federalist Society is mentioned here abouts, I thought the following from David Broder was interesting:

It's too soon to judge this nomination. But my guess is that, in the end, it is the liberals who will have the most misgivings about Miers. I came to that conclusion after a breakfast interview with Leonard Leo, who is on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society to work with the White House on judicial confirmation issues.

The Federalist Society, an organization of conservative lawyers, has been influential in staffing the Bush administration and recommending candidates for the federal bench. Leo came late to the breakfast from a conference call, in which he was attempting to quash the arguments other conservative leaders were making against Miers.

He spoke as one who has known her for well over a decade and joined her in a battle to get the American Bar Association to rescind its resolution endorsing Roe v. Wade, the decision establishing a right to abortion.

The first thing Leo said was that Miers' statement accepting the nomination from Bush was significant to him. "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the Founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society," she said, "and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution."

"When she talked about 'the Founders' vision' and used the word 'strictly,' "Leo said, "I thought, Robert Bork," Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court pick rejected by the Senate after a bitter fight. "She didn't have to go there. She could simply have said, 'Judges should not legislate from the bench.' But she chose those words."

As for the fight within the bar association, Leo said that he and Miers and their allies argued that it was "inappropriate" for the organization to endorse Roe "when there are doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying legal doctrine."

Was she opposed to the Roe decision? I asked. "That was not the issue. The only way to fight this within the ABA was to talk about the process" by which the endorsement was made. "It took a lot of courage to be out front on that issue" within the bar association, "especially for a woman." He said Miers is "well-regarded by anti-abortion leaders in Dallas" and has written a check to at least one such group.

Finally, I asked him to compare Miers to the justice she would be replacing, if confirmed. Unlike O'Connor, he said, "she believes in legal rules, that law has a content to it. She is not one who would vacillate back and forth in a world of murky standards, which is how I see Justice O'Connor."

Maybe that's what the president meant when he said he was confident she "won't change."

[NCLaw441]

Thanks for that. I have not determined finally what I think of Miers (not that it matters to anyone but me), but I do tend to give the president's nominee the benefit of the doubt unless and until I learn it is not warranted. I do believe she is conservative, but my impression (unsupported so far) is that she may not be as articulate as others on the bench. I am willing to concede that for another conservative vote. I understand that others are not so willing.

[GarySpFc]

Who was the greatest justice to ever serve on SCOTUS? Did you realize this person had only briefly studied law? Did you know he did not have any judicial experience when he was appointed chief justice, and yet he is considered the person who had the most influence on Constitutional Law? Have you ever heard of John Marshall? His single greatest attribute, which has been lacking in many of the recent justices to SCOTUS was character.

John Marshall-Biography

Experience: No prior judicial experience. Marshall held many political offices at the state and national levels.

John Marshall was born in a log cabin on the Virginia frontier, the first of fifteen children. He was a participant in the Revolutionary War as a member of the 3d Virginia Regiment. He studied law briefly in 1780, and was admitted to practice the same year. He quickly established a successful career defending individuals against their pre-War British creditors.

Marshall served in Virginia's House of Delegates. He also participated in the state ratifying convention and spoke forcefully on behalf of the new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation.

Marshall contemplated several offers to serve in the Washington and Adams administrations. He declined service as attorney general for Washington; he declined positions on the Supreme Court and as secretary of war under Adams. At Washington's direction, Marshall ran successfully for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives but his tenure there was brief. Adams offered Marshall the position of secretary of state, which Marshall accepted. When Ellsworth resigned as chief justice in 1800, Adams turned to the first chief justice, John Jay, who declined. Federalists urged Adams to promote associate justice William Paterson to the spot; Adams opted for Marshall.

Marshall's impact on American constitutional law is peerless. He served for more than 34 years (a record that few others have broken), he participated in more than 1000 decisions and authored over 500 opinions. As the single most important figure on constitutional law, Marshall's imprint can still be fathomed in the great issues of contemporary America. Other justices will surpass his single accomplishments, but no one will replace him as the Babe Ruth of the Supreme Court!

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/13/overview

[Ol' Sparky]

"I attend meetings designed to give me that input. However, I have tried to avoid memberships in organization s that were politically charged with one viewpoint or the other. For example, I wouldn’t belong to the Federalist Society any more than – I just feel like it’s better to not be involved in organizations that seem to color your view one way or the other for people who are examining you. I did join the (leftist) Progressive Voters League here in Dallas during the campaign as part of the campaign."

-- Harriet Miers

[jveritas]

Did you get enough orgasm over the Drudge report latest stuff regarding Miers from 1989-1990.

If she is a LEFT WING LIBERAL in 2005 then I am for withdrawing her nomination.

[Big Steve]

Nixon had two nominees rejected back to back in HAynesworth and Carswell, and we ended up with Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion to Roe v. Wade.

[GarySpFc]

I wonder how many of you have prayed fervently about the Miers nomination. If you are a Christian, then you should pray for her confirmation if she is the Lord's choice, and pray for her defeat if not.

[GarySpFc]

Harriet Miers certainly has her heart in the right place, but it remains to be seen if her head is competent for this position. The best thing we can do is wait until the hearings-- if she is able to run intellectual circles around the heads of the senators on constitutional law, she should certainly be confirmed. However, if it becomes clear during the procedures that she is unversed in these matters, then she should not be on the Court.

I am in 100% agreement. That said, if she isn't up to the job I will be on Brownback's case hard, and he doesn't appreciate that.

[GarySpFc]

Harriet Miers certainly has her heart in the right place, but it remains to be seen if her head is competent for this position. The best thing we can do is wait until the hearings-- if she is able to run intellectual circles around the heads of the senators on constitutional law, she should certainly be confirmed. However, if it becomes clear during the procedures that she is unversed in these matters, then she should not be on the Court.

I am in 100% agreement. That said, if she isn't up to the job I will be on Brownback's case hard, and he doesn't appreciate that.

[N3WBI3]

If she makes it she is the lords choice, one can not get power except through God..

[IMRight]

Clerking for Justice Robert Jackson-a distinguished Attorney and Solicitor General, American prosecutor for war crimes at Nuremberg, and one of the better Supreme Court justices of the 20th century

Wow.... half a post of nothing but how great the guy he clerked for was? That says lots about the rest of the post.

Yes, clerking for a year for ANY SC justice is hardly more "qualification" for SC than heading a state bar assoc.

Nor is "writing weighty opinions" a qualification for SC.

There's no way around the fact that Rehnquist was (on paper) little more qualified than Miers. Certainly not enough to justify the vitriol against her.