O'Connor replacement named.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

you mean her lack of qualifications??? there is no means to measure ANYTHING about her judicial opinion as she has none..

I heard on the news today that 39 of the Supreme Court justices had come to the SC with no bench experience, Justice Rehnquist being the most recent.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

This is a wild card play, not a good idea.

Actually, I think from Bush's perspective; it is a tremendous play; almost a win-win... Think about it, she is the White House consel, I am sure he has an even better idea of her views than he did Roberts. And there is a large part of me that believes they are a heck of alot more conservative.

So, either A: She gets confirmed, and the balance swings 5-4, or B: She doesn't get confirmed, and he can pick as conservative a justice as he wants because the Dems will have shot their wad taking down a so-called "moderate" candidate; who is also a woman...

I can see it now; "Hey, I gave you guys a woman with no history of conservative decision making (or any other, but that's not the point) and you would not go along, NOW I am going to pick whoever I want."

I think it's BRILLIANT. From a strategic standpoint, anyways.

Edited for spelling.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think it's BRILLIANT. From a strategic standpoint, anyways.

I agree with that. But.... I don't want the pick to be strategic, I want the candidate to be a potentially great judge, not a great choice for success in placement and advancing the party.

It's why I liked Roberts. He seemed very capable and inclined to be able to put aside personal issues to do the job based on the law - not politics. Democrats had to vote for him based on his qualifications, despite their desire to oppose anything Bush-originated. She just seems to play to the same old crap.

Bush did the right thing the first time, this time it just seems to be the same old chess game.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

1) How can someone with no experience on the Supreme Court be appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

2) How can someone with no prior judicial experience be appointed to the Supreme Court?

1- Chief Justice doesn't have more power than the others. When in the majority, he does write the decision, or assigns it to one of the others. In case of impeachment trials, he presides, but only the fringe elements of each party expects that to happen every year.

2- most judges are at least lawyers before becoming a judge. District Attorneys are likely the most common. Nothing entirely wrong with it.

But...I can't say I care much for this nomination. Bush has people with more experience that he can still trust.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

If she was never a judge, then where is the objective evidence based on past rulings that she doesn't allow her personal politics to sway her judicial decisions?

Justices Lewis Powell, Earl Warren, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black and Louis Brandeis had never served on the bench and, ideology aside, I don't think you will find significant criticism with their performance on the SC.

Then there is Abe Fortas ... an idiot appointed by LBJ for his personal servitude and loyalty to the president

Is Myers a female Abe Fortas? I don't know. I won't fault her on lack of judicial experience, but it appears she has been a life long politican with a long history of service and use to the shrub.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Just ONCE I'd like the appointment to be the best person IN THE NATION,

The last time someone was proposed becuase of absolutely stellar credentials it became a mockery. In fact, what happened to Robert Bork is now a verb.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

1- Chief Justice doesn't have more power than the others. When in the majority, he does write the decision, or assigns it to one of the others. In case of impeachment trials, he presides, but only the fringe elements of each party expects that to happen every year.

2- most judges are at least lawyers before becoming a judge. District Attorneys are likely the most common. Nothing entirely wrong with it.

Lets just ignore the names for a moment and look at just the system, I really do not want to be seen as criticizing these individual appointments - I have no idea who they are and couldn't care less if they're appointed.

I just want to look for a moment at a system which appoints people with NO judicial experience to the HIGHEST judicial positions in the land. I don't understand how can that be right?

Say the most senior general in the army is killed and you need to replace him. Do you replace him with:
a) the most competent of the more senior generals in the country,
b) the most competent of all generals in the country,
c) any army officer,
d) any soldier,
e) Dave, he did 3 years in the National Guard and used to be real good at D&D.

Lawyers are not judges. You don't get experience as a judge by working as a lawyer. Just because you are a good lawyer it does not necessarily follow that you're going to be a good judge. Until you've worked as a judge no one knows how good you're going to be as a judge.

I simply cannot fathom the logic behind putting people in the highest, most powerful court in the land when they have NEVER sat as a judge before.

It really is like handing the whole army over to Dave.

[kelpdiver 2]

3 years of reserve duty doesn't equate to a lifetime of practice.

And the type of work done at the highest court is quite different from that done at the superior or district court level. A bit more academic.

And it would be hard for even someone with no experience to be any worse than Clarence Thomas. Hopefully the bar will be set a bit higher though for this confirmation.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

years of reserve duty doesn't equate to a lifetime of practice

I know - just as a lifetime of working as a lawyer does not equate to experience as a judge. Of course the answer in my little analogy really ought to be "d" – I just couldn't resist making a joke so went with "Dave".

My example may be facetious, but it's there to make a point.

I just find it really odd that the system is set up to put people with no judicial experience into the highest judicial post in the country. No matter how you cut it that is just down right odd.

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

Well, Roberts actually served as a clerk to one of the supreme court justices, if I remember right, and he has argued many cases as a lawyer before the court, so he knows the way the court works very well. He was a good choice.

After reading a bit more about Miers, it was actually a Democratic senator who suggested her to Bush... she's a very thorough lawyer and low-key as well. She might not be a bad choice either, but her background as Bush's personal lawyer when he was Governor of Texas smacks a bit like cronyism and that is one thing the critics will pounce on. I expect a long, protracted hearing in committee with her and a lot of questions asked about her views...

This is my first post in SC, so go easy on me....

Roberts clerked for Rhenquist, whose seat he occupies now.

I also expect a long hearing in committee, and for good reason. When Bush nominated Roberts, there was a lot of spin about how qualified Roberts was. What a great legal mind he had. How he wasn't going to legislate from the bench. So lots of Democrats affirmed his nomination despite the fact that he didn't give any real answers about his views at all (which the White House would have everyone believe is the norm, but one only needs to look to the transcripts of the Ginsburg hearings to see that she DID give her views on certain controversial topics such as abortion).

However, because Miers has no qualifications, I'm sorry, but she's going to have to answer the questions. This is because not only do we have no judicial record, but everything she's ever written as WH counsel is going to be protected by attorney/client privilege. So yes, I do think the hearings are going to be long, and I hope they are.

Just my opinion. I just got out of a SC preview meeting with my ACS society, so I'm all fired up about this stuff now.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Lawyers are not judges. You don't get experience as a judge by working as a lawyer. Just because you are a good lawyer it does not necessarily follow that you're going to be a good judge. Until you've worked as a judge no one knows how good you're going to be as a judge.

To my learned friend across the pond,

It is true that lawyers are not judges. However, in a pragmatic sense we are. You and I both know that judges are like lawyers - neither knows all the laws. As lawyers, when we get a case we educate ourselves on the law. We educate ourselves because we will have to educate the judges on the law. Hopefully, our opinion sways the judge more than the opposition's.

On the other hand, people here must realize the vast differences between trial courts and appellate courts. Most law school professors and academic geniuses would make fucking lousy trial court judges. It so happens that most of them realize it, too. They do not want to spend time dealing with the minutiae of case administraton, trial objections, etc. Trial court judges have a much more difficult day-to-day job.

Meanwhile, appellate justices have an easier job, albeit more cerebral. They deal with the closed universe of the court file and the briefs and arguments of counsel. Appellate justices including the SCOTUS justices, practice in a truly academic setting. Their input in a case is limited to opinions.

I honestly believe that it's more difficult to be a trial court judge than a Supreme Court justice, and I think that being a judge in a trial court has little to do with being an appellate justice. Appellate justices have more in common with law professors than trial court judges.

Just my two-pence (pronounced "TOP-ence" for all us Yanks).

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I agree completely that many of the skills are transferable; after all, all judges were once lawyers (well, here they were at least).

I speak from a country where our top judges were all once merely important appellate judges, and those important appellate judges were once less important appellate judges and one day they were even a newly appointed appellate judge. Only then do we start to see people creaping in from the Bar.

It's all based on a system of promotion through numerous ranks, where only the best and most able are promoted to the next level.

Then to look across the pond I see that there it's possible to go straight in at the top with only comparable experience as opposed to actual experience, leading those appointing you to guess at your actual ability. It just seems odd to me, that's all. I end up wondering what is so wrong with the pool of appellate judges in the US which makes them so poorly qualified to sit as a Supreme Court Justice.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I end up wondering what is so wrong with the pool of appellate judges in the US which makes them so poorly qualified to sit as a Supreme Court Justice.

They have records that can be attacked by any group. Decide enough cases, and you'll have groups objecting to you, regardless of how correctly you applied the law or interpreted it.

Sadly, SCOTUS confirmations are now less about a nominee's qualifications and more about the nominee's ability to withstand the inevitable attacks. The less ammunition the opposition has, the better, and a long and distinguished appellate court career provides oodles of ammo to use against a person.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Sadly, SCOTUS confirmations are now less about a nominee's qualifications and more about the nominee's ability to withstand the inevitable attacks.

So essentially you're saying the system's broke'.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Sadly, SCOTUS confirmations are now less about a nominee's qualifications and more about the nominee's ability to withstand the inevitable attacks.

Agreed. It also makes sense like this:

"Sadly, US elections are now less about a candidate's qualifications and more about the candidate's ability to withstand the inevitable attacks."

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Sadly, SCOTUS confirmations are now less about a nominee's qualifications and more about the nominee's ability to withstand the inevitable attacks.

So essentially you're saying the system's broke'.

Nope. Heck, I'm qualified to be a justice. Anyone over the age of 35 can be President, which is a damned scary thought, but that's our system.

The system is actually working as intended.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sadly, SCOTUS confirmations are now less about a nominee's qualifications and more about the nominee's ability to withstand the inevitable attacks.

So essentially you're saying the system's broke'.

Nope. Heck, I'm qualified to be a justice. Anyone over the age of 35 can be President, which is a damned scary thought, but that's our system.

The system is actually working as intended.

You are saying that a system that has degenerated into who can withstand the attacks better is not broke? I would say the PRINCIPLES of the system are correct. The method used to realize those is broke.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Surely though if things are "now" less about qualifications there must have been a "then" when they were more about qualifications? Has the system been re-designed since "then"? Or was the "then" way of doing things a mistake and we are now doing things the way it was actually intended? And surely if this is "sadly" then you would prefer things to be as they were "then"?

Sorry, I feel I'm coming over all facetious again.

On a more serious note, when I say "broke" I am referring to the criteria on which the system focuses rather than the strict qualifications required. ie anyone is allowed to be on the Supreme Court and the system intended it to be the most qualified for the post who were appointed... sadly the system is perverted (or "broke") and as such it actually ends up preventing the most qualified from ever being appointed, instead appointing merely the least objectionable.

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

1- Chief Justice doesn't have more power than the others. When in the majority, he does write the decision, or assigns it to one of the others. In case of impeachment trials, he presides, but only the fringe elements of each party expects that to happen every year.

The Chief Justice DOES have more power than the others. Not only does he assign the opinions, which is a much greater power than you might expect, but he also appoints all the justices to the secret military courts for the Secret Service, FBI, and other covert agencies. And I think presiding over impeachment courts is a big deal, even if they only come up once in a blue moon.

For an example of how powerful assigning opinions makes someone, see the O'Connor opinion in the Casey decision. It's CRAP. (Well, I happen to think all of her opinions were crap, but I'm a law student and I like it when things are precise, especially when dealing with the last resort of law in the nation) But the point is that Rhenquist gave her the opinion because he was vehemently opposed to Roe and wanted to have an opinion that others could gut, and he knew it was going to be a terrible opinion to write. This is coming from one of my professors, who was clerking for Ginsburg at the time and knew what was going on.

And having read some of Robert's memos and decisions, I don't think it's unclear at all what he thinks. The whole "he was writing the pieces because he was representing a client" bullshit is a cop-out. And the phrase "judicial activism" really has no meaning anyway. It's really just what people call it when the other side does something they don't like.



Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie