Posted on 10/13/2005 6:53:22 AM PDT by 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
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.
Personally, I don't know how Jesus Christ comes down on the whole Miers controversy.
If implication is that if Miers makes it through this process intact, then it is God's will, then I suppose I can't gainsay that assertion.
However, that still does not mean she is the "best"-or even one of the better-individuals that could have been chosen for this position.
Pure BS.
Rehnquist had actualy argued constitutional cases both in the justice deparment and in private practice. Miers has absolutely no experience with constitutional law. That's not a "little" difference. That's huge.
The federal court system had just been created. Not much of an opportunity to gain experience as a judge. Besides, there are other ways of gaining exprience in Constitutional law than by being a federal judge. Marshall participated in ratifying the Constitution. What comparable experience does Miers have?
Oh nonsense! There were others on the SCOTUS who were associate justices and could have been elevated to the Chief Justice, and there were many other courts as well.
Ratifying the Constitution is not judicial experience. Clearly I would ignore it if I commented earlier that neither one had prior judicial experience.
No one is saying judicial experience is necessary. The point is experience with constitutional law, and Marshal clearly had that. Rehnquist had it too, as Assitant Attorney General. Thomas had it as head of the EEOC. Miers has none.
And these leaks are very disturbing - because at least two of the top candidates have said they did not withdraw their names from consideration. If that is the WH spin, it is pretty ugly. What are they saying? "Hey, we don't really like her either, but what were we supposed to do?" Plus, over time, it can be shown to be dishonest. For now, the other top candidates are unlikely to contradict the tale, as they still wish to get appointments. OTOH, had they withdrawn their names, they would have little to lose by confirming it...food for thought. I hope this spin did not start in the WH - but you are right, it looks that way.
I blame our GOP Senators. They have not backbone.
I agree...to a point. There are too many lame weaklings in the Senate. But there are better candidates who could have been confirmed, even by the weaklings.
Your post bears repeating. This "Miers = Rehnquist" connection solely becuase neither one served as Judge prior to SCOTUS appointment is absurd.
Rehnquist, along with sll the other SCOTUS nominees who had never been judges, got the nod for SCOTUS because he was one of the most distinguished lawyers and legal minds in this country, as well as a long track record as a brilliant conservative thinker.
Rehnquist was Deputy Attorney General at the time of his appointment. This made him in the 2nd highest ranking lawyer in the country. Rehnquist has more in common with Larry Thompson, another outstanding deputy A.G. (who was among those "passed up" in favor of Texas Lotto Commissioner Miers.
Rehnquist worked in the Nixon white house but was NOT a Nixon crony. Nixon thought Rehnquist looked "goofy" with the long sideburns and pink shirts (hey, it was 1971), and called him "Rennburg". Rehnquist got the job because of his outstanding credentials and because the research team at the white house made their case to Nixon that Rehnquist was a rising conservative star who could stay on the court for years to come because he was in his 40s (great foresight there)
Rehnquist had paid his dues to the GOP. He was a long time party activist, legal adviser, and contributor. He was a Goldwater Republican. His conservative advocacy dated back to his youth in Milwaukee. Nobody doubted Rehnquist would tilt the court rightward, which is why the libs opposed his nomination so much but didn't touch Powell during the same confirmation hearings.
Rehnquist was a living legend. Miers is a nice lady, but she is cipher. This is no nice way of putting it.
I guess the truth hurts.
Leaving aside the fact that the U.S. "court" system had barely existed more than a decade, the "Supreme Court" was a largely ceremonial job whose members met in a basement, probably 60% of this country was illiterate, had a 5th grade education, and lived to the ripe old age of 52, John Marshall's credentials at the time of his appointment STILL stand miles above Miers:
--Attended the College of William and Mary.
--Studied under the tutelage of jurist George Wythe (the nation's first Law Professor)
-- Member of the Culpeper Minutemen serving the third Virginia Continental Regiment and rising to the rank of Captain.
-- Helped ratify the U.S. constitution as new supreme law in 1788
--Served as leader of the Federalist Party in the Virgina state Assembly
--Served as lead negotiator with France during the XYZ Affair
-- Appointed U.S. Secretary of State under President Adams
--Appointed Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on January 20, 1801. At 45 years of age, Marshall was the youngest Chief Justice in U.S. history
Please, give it a rest people.
Yes, yes, as you stated Marshall did this in a land of 5th graders.
You said (in part): There are too many lame weaklings in the Senate. But there are better candidates who could have been confirmed, even by the weaklings.
***
I hope you are right, but with the gang of 14, Arlen Specter et al, I am not convinced. Good judicial candidates have been lost for lack of fortitude by a GOP-majority Senate. All of the president's nominees could have been pushed through if there was sufficient will and guts by our side.
Another thought that keeps tugging at my mind is the degree to which the president may be occupied by the war on terror. Not just Afghanistan and Iraq, but domestic terror plots domestically. I am certain that there have been numerous attempts foiled since Sept 11, but that for security reasons we have not been informed. These successes will be disclosed at an appropriate time in the future when it is safe (would the previous administration have had the same restraint? the question needn't even be asked). I am not sure the president is up for another fight at this point. Congress did not support social security reform, either.
I am not a Pres. Bush cheerleader. I did vote for him, and I respect him. I disagree with his lack of emphasis on immigration issues, campaign finance reform and other matters, but I generally support him, and am thankful that we have neither Gore nor Kerry in the WH.
Miers' nomination might not have happened had the president known that his nominee of first choice would be pushed through. He had no such assurance. With Miers, he is confident of a 5th conservative vote. He seems to be a pretty good judge of character, with a good judicial nomination record so far. I'll take his word over others who don't know her-- at least until the hearings.
Yeah Right! Give me a break, thats like comparing apples and oranges. I happen to trust Bush and do not believe that he would lie.
Even I, who has a copy of the constitution that I refer to can understand it. That is simple.
Comaparing this nominee to Clarence Thomas is like comparing large apples to small oranges!! I also trusted him for the most part but he's lost me now. He did not do what he said he would do. He has no excuses, excuses are for liberals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.