Bush Chooses Miers for Supreme Court
I admit I don't really know too much about the legal profession, or the Supreme Court and its procedures. But is it really too much to expect that people nominated to become the most important judges in our country to have actually been judges before? Maybe it is, I guess.
Now, I know experience and qualifications don't count for much with George Bush, but after hearing some early reports that people think this is a great move because there aren't any rulings for Democrats to pick apart in order to challenge the nomination, I just wonder if being qualified has now actually become a liability under this administration.
9 comments:
"Although the Constitution imposes specific age, residency, and citizenship qualifications for the president of the United States and members of Congress, it sets no similar qualifications for Supreme Court justices, except that every candidate must be the president's choice and acceptable to a majority in the Senate. No prior experience as a judge, no expertise as a constitutionalist, indeed, no training in the law at all, is formally necessary. Nevertheless, virtually every appointment has come from the pool of those with training in the law and professional experience as lawyers and judges."
- John Paul Jones
- Found under the FEW BASIC RULES section on this page.
Bush's pick is a legitimate one. What you said about experience and qualifications not counting for much with him isn't necessarily true in this case... no formal legal training is necessary. He is merely sticking with tradition: "virtually every appointment has come from the pool of those with training in the law and professional experience as lawyers and judges."
I understand that experience is not required by law, what I question is why he wouldn't want someone with some anyway.
From what I understand so far, this is a relatively good thing for the left side of the spectrum.
She appears NOT to be a legal conservative.
She does have legal experience though. She's been a lawyer since '72.
So I just saw she was a Democrat throughout the 1980s and gave money to both Clinton and Gore.
Can't be all bad.
Well, that sounds good anyway. I really don't know anything about her yet. My comment in this post was just basically wondering why Bush doesn't think to go find a judge for the position.
I actually have of the opinion that prior judicial background is not a requirement. She is hardly the first and sometimes it allows for different perspectives and more real-world thinking. I feel ok about Miers to this point, but time will tell. However, I have no qualms with the lack of judicial experience. Again, she is hardly the first and it has often not been a bad thing.
Agreed Gypsy, I rescind my earlier comment based on this new info (which I've since posted on Slack). And yes, this is brilliant if this is what they're gonna do. Bring someone in with liberal enough credentials, then have her turn out to be the deciding vote against Roe v Wade.
Strategerie.
2 new anti-choice justices in the same session? Wow, nightmares really do come true.
I'm new here. Love the countdown clock. Tick, tick, tick....
Post a Comment