27 Oct 05
Originally posted by newdad27Because she was wholly unqualified.
why is this good (or bad) news?
I fear that Roberts will issue decisions that I dislike, and will lead the Court backwards with respect to my values, but he will do these things as a competent jurist. Miers could have done anything--she has proven herself as a successful lawyer, but as a jurist she remains a complete unknown. We do not need such unqualified jurists on the highest court in the land.
One Justice Thomas is one too many.
Bush's next appointee will likely be more pleasing to cultural conservatives (who have hijacked all this is good, worthy, and true in Republicanism), but if he or she is as lacking in credentials, we must pressure our Senators to reject the nominee. We cannot expect a civil libertarian from Dubya, so we can hope that his nominee, if confirmed, is old or ill.
27 Oct 05
Originally posted by Wulebgri just dont think we knew enough about her to consider her unqualified, unless of course you will just consider anyone Bush nominates unqualified. She does not have to of been a judge to be able to interpret law. And I would rather have a thomas than some activist loon judge like you find on the 9th circuit court of appeals in san francisco.
Because she was wholly unqualified.
I fear that Roberts will issue decisions that I dislike, and will lead the Court backwards with respect to my values, but he will do these things as a competent jurist. Miers could have done anything--she has proven herself as a successful lawyer, but as a jurist she remains a complete unknown. We do not need such unqua ...[text shortened]... ct a civil libertarian from Dubya, so we can hope that his nominee, if confirmed, is old or ill.
27 Oct 05
Originally posted by newdad27You're not reading what I wrote. I don't like Roberts, but there is no question that he is qualified. Scalia was marginally qualified, but much more so than Thomas, and I don't like either.
i just dont think we knew enough about her to consider her unqualified, unless of course you will just consider anyone Bush nominates unqualified. She does not have to of been a judge to be able to interpret law. And I would rather have a thomas than some activist loon judge like you find on the 9th circuit court of appeals in san francisco.
Anyone without substantial experience on the bench is unqualifies to sit on the highest bench.
I expect that Bush will never nominate someone I like ideologically, but in Roberts, he gave us a nominee with steller qulaifications. For the record, I don't much like Breyer, but his qulaifications were clear. Of the recent justices, Thomas had only one year on the Court of Appeals, and Rehnquist had none. Reading opinions written by these two men is often terribly frustrating when you begin with the expectation of careful legal reasoning; rather, they make outlandish ideological declarations as their argument for aor against the case at issue.
27 Oct 05
Originally posted by Wulebgryou just dont know enough about her to make your thesis valid. She was the legal advisor to the most powerful person in the world. I don't think you are qualified to say she is not qualified. I don't know if she is qualified or not, but that's the point. Nobody knows.
You're not reading what I wrote. I don't like Roberts, but there is no question that he is qualified. Scalia was marginally qualified, but much more so than Thomas, and I don't like either.
Anyone without substantial experience on the bench is unqualifies to sit on the highest bench.
I expect that Bush will never nominate someone I like ideologicall ...[text shortened]... ey make outlandish ideological declarations as their argument for aor against the case at issue.
27 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrNeither John Marshall, nor Earl Warren had been judges before becoming highly regarded chief justice of the United States.
Because she was wholly unqualified.
I fear that Roberts will issue decisions that I dislike, and will lead the Court backwards with respect to my values, but he will do these things as a competent jurist. Miers could have done anything--she has proven herself as a successful lawyer, but as a jurist she remains a complete unknown. We do not need such unqua ...[text shortened]... ct a civil libertarian from Dubya, so we can hope that his nominee, if confirmed, is old or ill.
There are no set rules for qualification. Although every past justice has been a lawyer, 41 of the 109 justices had no prior judicial experience. Who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court is a determination made on a nominee by nominee basis by at least 51 US senators.
Fortunately, you're not a Senator.
27 Oct 05
Originally posted by newdad27I know she has never served as a judge. That is all I need to know. That's my criteria.
you just dont know enough about her to make your thesis valid. She was the legal advisor to the most powerful person in the world. I don't think you are qualified to say she is not qualified. I don't know if she is qualified or not, but that's the point. Nobody knows.
I've spent all of my adult life as a court watcher, and I've published scholarly articles in which the poor legal reasoning of Rehnquist came under scrutiny. Others may disagree that judicial experience is necessary, but I can produce reams of evidence that justices without experience are harmful to the law.
27 Oct 05
Originally posted by xsMarshall is the exception. Furthermore, when the US was young, there were far fewer with judicial experience.
Neither John Marshall, nor Earl Warren had been judges before becoming highly regarded chief justice of the United States.
There are no set rules for qualification. Although every past justice has been a lawyer, 41 of the 109 justices had no prior judicial experience. Who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court is a determination made on a nominee by nominee basis by at least 51 US senators.
Fortunately, you're not a Senator.
Although I agree with many of Warren's opinions on ideological grounds, his legal reasoning (rooted in his lack of experience) render the very decisions that I celebrate at risk during the era of the Roberts Court.
Even so, Earl Warren served as Attorney General of California, which put him in charge of the office that argued the interests of California before the Supreme Court. Miers lacked even this level of experience, and was one of the least qualified nominees in the history of the Court.
27 Oct 05
I don't necessarily agree that judicial experience should be a requirement for the Supreme Court, though I would think that the lack of it would be a minus. Mier's biggest problem seemed to be that shje didn't want to reveal anything of her judicial philosophy (if any) by allowing any part of her advice to the President to be revealed even to the US Senate. A nominee with no judicial experience and thus no track record cannot be expected to be insulated from any inquiry into past statements on legal matters; how can the Senate "advise and consent" if the nominee is effectively allowed to foreclose any review of her prior legal work and opinions?
27 Oct 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOnce again intelligent disagreement from No1 on matter of politics. Informed debate is so rare here that I was forced to give you another rec for telling me I'm wrong. 😛
I don't necessarily agree that judicial experience should be a requirement for the Supreme Court, though I would think that the lack of it would be a minus. Mier's biggest problem seemed to be that shje didn't want to reveal anything of her judicial philosophy (if any) by allowing any part of her advice to the President to be revealed even to the US S ...[text shortened]... the nominee is effectively allowed to foreclose any review of her prior legal work and opinions?
27 Oct 05
William O. Douglas, a great champion of individual rights, served on the court for 36 years although he had no prior judical experience. These things need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. I agree with your assessment of Thomas and think he might be the most unqualified member of the Supreme Court appointed in the 20th century, though I'm willing to consider other nominees for this worthy title.
27 Oct 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOh fecal emissions! You picked one of my heros, and a local boy to boot, to throw at my litmus test. I guess I better hobble down to the chemistry supply shop and ask for a different brand.
William O. Douglas, a great champion of individual rights, served on the court for 36 years although he had no prior judical experience. These things need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. I agree with your assessment of Thomas and think he might be the most unqualified member of the Supreme Court appointed in the 20th century, though I'm willing to consider other nominees for this worthy title.
No wonder you're No1.