What are your views of Harriet Miers?

[Mathx]

What do you think of her qualifications? Both Lefties and Righties seem to agree that she is not the best qualified person for the highest court in America, yet Bush feels that she is...I feel that he shouldn't push her above other "actual" judges because she is his friend and she is a woman...




Plus I think that she just looks plain evil to me...

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y277/Mathx/capt.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y277/Mathx/evil.jpg

[Coded-Dude]

Thats what conservative politics are all about, save the success for your friends - not the most qualified....
She is basically a life long supporter of the Bush Dynasty and therefore G-Dub is rewarding her for her loyalty.

Do I think she could do the job - YES
Do I think she should do the job - NO
Does it really matter - Of Course Not

Obviously there are more qualified people for this position, but thats not how appointments are made in the current administration.

[Sendok]

Do I think she is the person for the job = no
Could she do the job...sure i'm sure the pekin county court houses' judge could do the same...(not saying alot)

[Pro A.]

Hard to say what her impact will be on the court, but she seems like an acceptable choice to replace O'Connor.

[Mathx]

I heard that a pro-choice group had here as a "bronze-member" or something after she donated a large sum to their group...

The way I see it from a job standpoint (disregarding the issues of Conservative/Liberal...both her and Roberts are not fit for their positions, I could see Roberts as a Supreme Court judge, but cheif justice...what makes him a better candidate over the other Justices? and Miers has never been a judge...there is no law that you have to replace a woman with a woman...many people are expecting another minority such as a Hispanic (since they are the largest growing minority) but no...

[Megatron40]

I don't think she should get it. She has no judicial experience. How can we expect her to do a decent job? We have no record or credential to look at her on. She's been a lawyer and is probably most certainly an expert on the law. Then again... lawyers aren't taught to take both sides of the issue and consider. They fight for one side. I don't see how it can work. It's like hiring me to be the campaign manager for a presidential nominee. I know the nominee's positions on issues and all that, but I don't know how to run the campaign.

Note: If something I said up there is bunk please excuse it. I'm tired and I haven't gotten much sleep recently. I'll probably come back and edit it anyway or post something new.

[Mr.Snuggles]

ginsburg didnt have any judicial experience, neither did rehnquist.

either she is a stealth ultra conservative pick, or she is a disaster waiting to happen. we probably wont know for another 5-10 years.

[Lord Worm]

All politicians appoint nice government jobs to their friends, not just the Conservatives.

[Coded-Dude]

All politicians appoint nice government jobs to their friends, not just the Conservatives.
True, but there is a difference between picking a friend/loyalist and picking a qualified friend/loyalist

[Lord Worm]

Yes, one exists, the other doesn't.

[Coded-Dude]

thats very naive to think.....just look at Bush's FEDA appointment!

[Blaksmoke]

She's wearing a Hannibal-esque flesh mask.

[Mary]

I don't think she should get it. She has no judicial experience. How can we expect her to do a decent job? We have no record or credential to look at her on. She's been a lawyer and is probably most certainly an expert on the law. Then again... lawyers aren't taught to take both sides of the issue and consider. They fight for one side. I don't see how it can work. It's like hiring me to be the campaign manager for a presidential nominee. I know the nominee's positions on issues and all that, but I don't know how to run the campaign.

Lawyers are actually taught to take both sides. The ability to see both sides of a situation equally is somthing highly stressed in law school.

I think she can do it but i agree there are much better choices out there.

[Blaksmoke]

Well she's old. Old people die. You know how it goes.

[Megatron40]

Lawyers are actually taught to take both sides. The ability to see both sides of a situation equally is somthing highly stressed in law school.

I think she can do it but i agree there are much better choices out there.

What I menat was that being a lawyer in a court room, you don't tell the other guy he has a good point. You got a client to protect. That type of thing. I'm sure she may very well look at both sides, but is she going to stick to her client or do what she thinks is right (metaphorically speaking in reguard to her being a judge). I just don't know. I would have to know her personally to make that kind of decision. For all I know she could be a pretty fair and sound-minded judge. It's just hard to see. There's never really a way to tell.

[Mary]

That's what all the Judges are expected to do. Listen to both sides then decide which they think is most right. It's a very good thing. If none of the judges chose a side nothing would ever get decided. They'd just sit around talking about how both sides are nice and no conclusion can be made. Her being a lawyer is in no was a bad thing, it's actually a very good thing. One of the main problems with forming an opinion about her though is people only know so much about where she stands on issues. She doesn't seem overly conservative which is pretty nice, but it really is hard to tell. She's sort of a wild card, could be awesome or could be a disaster.

[Megatron40]

No my point was being that because she was a lawyer I know she knows the law pretty well and could make an excellent judge, but I've never supported someone with no previous experience getting a top job. Like you said she's a wild card. We don't know if she'll be a "do as Bush says" person or if she'll really do what she wants. Maybe it's paranoia on my part, but there's enough corruption on all levels of government you can hardly blame me for it. Anyway, judge and lawyer mindsets are different. There's no arguing that. Judge listens to both sides. Lawyer tries to prove his side is more acceptable whether they believe what they're trying to prove or not. My question being is whether she'll play the lawyer and try and prove the one side or whether she'll really sit down and decide fairly which is better. I'm not saying the lawyer part is bad at all. I just have no clue what to think without having a previous judicial record. Private Joe, although he knows a lot about warfare and is an excellent leader with a lot of potential (not to mention he knows the system) doesn't get promoted to General in one go. Personally I like to look at one's background. I became pro-Bush because I thought he wasn't too bad of a governor (yes I live in Texas), and I thought he could handle it. I have no doubt she COULD make an excellent judge, but I can't tell. Never being a judge, I just can't tell.

Edit: When applying for a job, don't the managers like to see some solid background and some good references? That's what I want before I'm sure. Right now I don't think she'll be bad. Then again I thought our current governor wouldn't do too bad either (worthless scum that he is). You just can't tell. At least I can't.

[Phryne Astynome]

Her credentials are pretty shoddy. Southern Methodist University is no where near as rigorous or prestigious as the law schools the other justices attended (Harvard, Yale, Stanford). The firm that she worked with is crappy and I don't think she was on the Law Review. Furthermore, she doesn't have any publications and no judicial experience at all (save for a District Court clerkship). Most of the current justices attended prestigious law reviews, graduated near the top of their class, were on law review, and had prestigious clerkships (at least on the Appellate court level). She is going to be intellectually inferior to her peers. Overall, I am against her appointment.

[xbdestroya]

My opinion on Miers is quite mixed. On the one hand, she's obviously *not* the best qualified choice. On the other, since Bush could very well have chosen a much more qualified individual with diametrically opposed views to certain social and legal issues I hold, what can I say but that this is better than that?? On top of that, the whole thing seems to have left the conservative 'base' quite angry. Hey, good times! Can it be that even for them, Bush's cronyism has gone to far? People talk about how for such a 'brave' president this was an especially 'shy' move. Not so my friends. To come out of the whole FEMA/Dan Brown/Katrina thing and go straight to appointing a nobody/personal friend to the highest court in the land? No no, that's bravery on a whole new level.