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
And your point?
Renquist clerked for the Supreme Court...in other words, he probably wrote a supreme court opinion while Miers was still in law school.
Doesn't matter, those with an anti-Meirs template are all aflutter over Harriet Miers sending then Gov. Bush an American Greetings card(gasp, time for a special prosecutor).
Why should we care if she has experience with constitutional law issues after all W knows her and that should be good enough for any conservative /sarcasm
Janice Rogers Brown would have been an awesome pick that would've fired up the conservative base. She's got a great life story and it would've been awesome to see liberal racists like Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy talk down to her.
Instead, we are stuck with a woman who really excites no one. Maybe she'll surprise us and blow away Kennedy & Co in the hearings and turn out great, but the point is - Why do we have to hope? Why didn't Bush nominate a proven entity? Clinton didn't pussy foot around when he nominated Breyer and Ginsburg - why did Bush?
"Two years later, Nixon had another chance to nominate a Southerner, and to add a judicial (and political) conservative. Nixon nominated Lewis F. Powell of Richmond, Virginia to replace Black, and Rehnquist to replace Harlan. Rehnquist was questioned at Senate Judiciary Committee hearings about a memorandum he had written for Justice Jackson in 1952 concerning the then-pending case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The memorandum concluded that "separate but equal" (the standard in Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896) was the correct constitutional standard. At his hearings, Rehnquist testified that the memo did not reflect his views, but the views of Justice Jackson, to be used at the conference of the Justices at which Brown would be discussed. His testimony was disputed by others (but supported privately by Justice William O. Douglas, the only member of the Court in 1971 who was on the Court in 1952), but the flap subsided, and Rehnquist was confirmed by a vote of 68-26. (Powell, the more moderate nominee, was confirmed by a vote of 89-1.)"
Your point is irrelevant. It's not that Miers has never been a judge -- frankly, that's a good thing. But she's got no record of any kind, that we can find anyway, on the kinds of Constitutional questions that come to the Supreme Court -- no cases argued, no memos like Roberts, no articles, no classes taught, nothing. So we have to assume that she is a strict constructionist and that she will have the backbone to resist the kinds of blandishments that moved Anthony Kennedy to being at least a quasi-liberal judge.
For goodness' sake, the woman was editor of the Texas Law Review, and STILL we haven't been able to find ANY evidence of any thinking about the Constitution or judicial philosophy. That's the problem -- and especially so when there wree so many good solid originalist thinkers whom the President could have picked.
Frankly, Miers wouldn't have been on anyone's Supreme Court list. How did she float to the top of Bush's?
Is the Constitution not written in plain English? Do you suppose that Harriet Meirs cannot read and interpret the English language?
So a bit over a year as a clerk qualifies one to be on the SC now? His experience prior to being nominated was hardly more laudable than hers.
And the "while she was still in law school" comment is just silly. If you want someone who was clerking for the SC when Rehnquist was... that person would also likely be near death.
Rehnquist was an advisor to Barry Goldwater along with Robert Bork. He was in the trenches of the conservative movement throughout the 60's. Where he stood was well known.
I remember when Rhenquist was nominated. The critics said he was undistinguished. But they believed he was a conservative because Nixon nominated him! Also recall that Nixon had had two nominations rejected prior to nominating Rhenquist.
Obviously not, can someone show me where the Founders wrote a definate career track to be a SCOTUS justice?
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.