Justice Miers?

The problem is....

You seem to think the only way one can learn the law is to try a case and that simply is untrue. As a matter of fact, once one moves onto certain benches they can become very parochial in their knowledge of the law as they deal only with a particular type cases which always appear before them. Appelate judges review cases that have been decided by another judge prior to appeal. Generally, the higher they sit the broader scope of cases they review. The Supreme Court reviews cases from family law, to corporate law to constitutional law (generally as long as they are on an intrastate or constitutional level). You can shake it out all you want but what that requires is a deep knowledge of the law and the bench is not the only way to acquire that knowledge. Heck, one could make a valid argument that what is necessary is a scholar of the law and not a practitioner such as a judge or lawyer. You seem to point towards knowledge of procedure and how the case was developed as a necessary requirement. However, knowledge of procedure can come from appearing in court as well as presiding over one. The solicitor general probably appears before the SC more than any other lawyer in the land. Is that person now the best qualified to sit on the SC? You point out that you have appeared in court with judges that didn't know how to "preside" over the court and indicated it was a problem. However, one could also say since you have never been a judge you are unable to crtiticise the persons conduct. In fact, that is actually the theory you yourself are making by saying that judicial experience is necessary to preside over a high appeals court. Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that but your theory seems to lead in that direction.

Fact, some of the most influential and beloved justices that ever sat on the SC never wore a robe before they rose to the court. I would bet that in the history of the Supreme Court most judges period were never judges. Maybe someone can come up with some data on that....

 

No, I did not say that the only way to learn the law is to try a case. I say only that it is a good way to learn a lot about it, that's all. A person who has tried cases probably learned a good deal more from the experience than would likely be the case from any other experience.

Your point about using scholars as Judges is an interesting one. This in fact IS the practical result in Civil Law countries such as France and Germany.

Judges are career civil servants with no particular prestige. Very difficult issue in specific cases are referred to academic experts for resolution. When such a country decides to reform its Civil Code, the government turns to legal scholars to draft the proposed changes.

In England and the U.S., we remember our prominent Judges; in France and Germany, that fame goes to great professors of law.

 

Re: In England and the U.S., we remember our prominent Judges

Yes, some in our legal profession can become a little amazed by themselves. Anybody have any good lawyer jokes?

Sorry,

 

Re: Re: In England and the U.S., we remember our prominent Judges

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ professional courtesy.

 

In an article in USA Today you can read at this link, Miers is described as a born-again Christian who had a definitive religious experience, then joined an evangelical church.

As I read her history, she is actually a right-winger's wet dream. And, while I've never supported discriminating against someone because of their religious faith, I find it difficult to imagine Miers being able to not rule on the basis of that faith. The nouveau-right has preached for many years about the notion of evangelical Christians running for elective office in order to foster a "biblical agenda," as it were. I wouldn't take conservative objections to Miers too seriously - it seems to me that she would be their ideal nominee for the Court.

For those who are familiar with the Christian right, do a search on the work of Janice LaRue, a graduate of the Simon Greenleaf School of Law (which I attended for part of a semester back in 1987). She is in the same camp as Phyllis Schaffly, Concerned Women for America, et al. Reading the story about Miers, I couldn't help being reminded about LaRue and her born-again conservative agenda.

These hearings should be interesting . . . Seems to me that Bush has given conservatives exactly what they want.

 

I think that the right wing objection is that she's thought to favor, or perhaps inadequately disfavor, gay rights.

I am fairly sure that she would support ending legal abortion.

 

Not that my opinion matters a whit, but I'm as conservative as they come, and I'm not at all happy with the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

Maybe I'm "old-school", but I believe if someone is nominated to serve on the highest court in the land, they should have some judicial experience. Miers appears to be nothing more than a longtime Bush supporter.

I would have much preferred Janice Rogers Brown. The entertainment value of watching Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, and the rest of that merry crew trying to discredit/smear a black woman, while trying to remain politically correct, would have been priceless.

 

I'm sorry, but it is hard for me to even see the words "Phyllis Schaffly" and "Women" in the same sentence..... That old shrew hasn't seen a good hard roll in the hay for at least 50 years....

 

I think that is one of the major contentions the right has with this choice. Bush had the chance to stick it in their a**es but didn’t do it. But you know… he very seldom engages the left like that. (I wish he would more often.) He has never played “tit for tat”, he seldom responds to the left’s criticisms, and he’s usually very non-confrontational when it comes to the political games that nearly everyone else in DC plays. I think he could improve his image if he more vigorously defended himself.

That being said, the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice should not be about “entertainment value”. I hope that’s also the way Bush feels. Sure, it would be nice to watch the Dems implode, but a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is more important than watching a few Democrats discredit themselves. Maybe Bush knows something about this woman that the rest of us don’t. He says she’s the best person for the job… I hope he truly believes that.

 

Can you tell me something about Janice Rogers Brown?

 

I thought it was hilarious when she was on Bill Mahr's show on HBO. She looked like a talking head (with no body). When asked how come so many Republicans who hate homosexuals have homosexual children (he was referring to Phyllis, Cheney, and some other Republican). Of course, Phyllis skirted the question bigtime.

 

I really, really wonder if Ms. Miers will be confirmed.

Even ultra conservative George Will says that there's no evidence that she SHOULD be appointed and that the whole thing looks like cronyism at its worst.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown

 

Janice Rogers Brown is an African American appellate judge who only received confirmation for that post after the filibuster deal. She is very conservative, quite witty, and she doesn't hesitate to write in strong terms.

I am somewhat content with the Harriet Miers nod in the sense that I predict I will generally like her votes. However, having said that, I am still a little embarrased that she is not nearly as "distinguished" as I would like. This is a touchy and highly subjective area, but state bars, lotto commissions and city councils are not exactly where I look for my judicial Solomons.

I don't have a problem with her not already being a judge, but as I think Peggy Noonan said, Miers in her whole life has never written a single substantial sentence about the nature of the law. I'm not sure Janice Brown would be successfully confirmed, but substantial legal opinions are that lady's warp and woof. I would rather have a nominee go down in flames than merely sneak in.

 

How about....

How about the first female managing partner of a major law firm. It really bothers me that people overlook most of this woman's resume to just cherry pick the little jobs. If a republican did it to a liberal nominee they would be labelled a sexist. Giles on Sunday Morning did it this morning, dismissing her as "Bush's personal lawyer". This from a woman. Give me a break.....

 

But it IS fun to watch right wing spokespeople complain that Ms. Miers is unacceptable on IDEOLOGICAL grounds; the very thing the Senate majority condemned the filibustering Democrats for doing...

Isn't politics fun?

I wouldn't bet money on Ms. Miers being confirmed. She's garnering a surprising amount of Democratic support but it's doubtful whether enough moderate GOP Senators will combine with enough moderate Dems to pull it off...

It was different with Chief Justice Roberts; there was absolutely NO debate concerning whether he was fully qualified and borderline brilliant and possessed of the charm and reputation to make him a very successful and influential Justice.

But remember, folks; under the constitution, Ms. Miers IS qualified and therefore, according to earlier comments by Senator Frist and others, she should be confirmed without a murmur...

 

Hey! Come to think of it, I myself was once appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate! It's true!

In those days, reserve officers appointed to the grades Lt. Colonel or Commander required Senate confirmation. I don't think this is true anymore; I think the Senate considers only O-6 and above reserve appointments now.

It was not QUITE routine because Tailhook had just happened and the Senate delayed the process whilst making sure none of the Navy officers on the selection list had been anywhere NEAR that hotel at the time.

But in the end, I think they attached the our confirmation list as a rider to some other, equally significant piece of legislation; maybe the National Artichoke Day Declaration?