Harriet Miers - Opinions on Nomination?

[jeff]

It is interesting. During Roberts' confirmation the administration made a big point that religion was off-target and not to be discussed, and now Bush is saying that it's a central part of why Miers is a wonderful candidate. He also says that her religion is proof of her constancy, which is kind of bizarre considering that she converted from Roman Catholic to evangelical.

People like Wills, Krauthammer, Coulter, Gary Bauer, Barrett in the WSJ, Kristol, all weighing in against her as a crony, and as not a proven ideologically conservative quantity. Interesting

[Mr Epee]

You're all missing the point.

Men should be judged based on their intellect and experience.

Women should be judged based on their loyalty to God and the men in their lives.

This isn't unusual.

[mental bastille]

A few points:
First, to the function of the Supreme Court.
The function of the Supreme Court was intended to be a balance on legislation, using the Constitution to eliminate unjust laws, or where the Constitution fails, to use the justices' opinions to determine whether laws are just. While it is always nice to have someone who has experience in the field for which they are being appointed, the nature of the Supreme Court means that really, all they need is familiarity with the Constitution and the ability to logically defend their positions. There is a reason that prior judicial experience isn't a requirement for Justicehood. That being said, I feel like someone in such an important position should have experience.
Second: The job of a Justice, I feel, should be to interpret the Constitution, and to uphold justice and the rights of individual citizens. For this, I believe that appointees should be able to demonstrate that they can uphold this.

My feeling about Ms. Meirs is that she is being appointed, not because she will uphold the Constitution, justice, and human rights, but because she is likely to vote the 'right way'. Bush seems to be making an attempt to consolidate his control of the third branch of government. I feel like this violates the 'checks and balances' idea that the Founding Fathers intended, but hey, that's just me.

[Have At You]

She is being criticized by the right because of her lack of an activist history.

There seems to be some confusion here about what an "activist" judge is.

An "activist" judge is one who looks beyond existing law to support a ruling, or one who uses to courts to establish law that properly should be created by the legislature or by constitutional amendment.

An activist judge is NOT merely one who overturns legislation or executive action (which is a definition some on this board seem to have heard). Judicial conservatives do that. All judges do that. It's their job.


With respect to Miers, she's being criticized not for a lack of activist history, but for having a lack of any judicial history whatsoever, and so it is therefore feared that she may have activist leanings that have yet been unrevealed.

[keith]

With respect to Miers, she's being criticized not for a lack of activist history, but for having a lack of any judicial history whatsoever, and so it is therefore feared that she may have activist leanings that have yet been unrevealed.

okay perfect example of right of centre semantic confusion.

What you mean is there is a fear she will be an activist judge like souter, warren, brennan et al. Should Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Miers start re-writting precedent and established law on privacy rights they would be being 'activist' by your definintion - but I doubt you would be complaining about it.

I am getting a strange sense of Deja vu............

Personally I am going to fascinated by the ruling on the Oregon 'right to die' law - think this will be an interesting test for Scalia, Thomas and Roberts (and maybe Miers), just how important is the federal governments ability to regulate the pharmaceutical industry?

[Have At You]

If Scalia started overruling precedent based on extralegal considerations, by all means that would be judicial activism and I'd call it that.

If Scalia started overruling precedent within the principles of stare decisis, based on a different interpretation of the existing law, then that would be consistent with the role of a judge and not activist.

If Scalia started deeming legislation or executive actions unconstitutional based on policy or social considerations, then that would be judicial activism and I'd call it that.

If Scalia started deeming legislation or executive actions unconstitutional because his reading of the Constitution requires him to do so, then that would be consistent with the role of a judge, and not activist.


This is not twisting semantics. Words have meaning. It is clear that some people on this board don't understand the terms of art they're throwing around, and it is important that everyone be speaking the same language for rational discussion to occur.

[Epee_Pox]

There was an excellent series of posts in the "Rehnquist Died" thread describing precisely what is meant by judicial activism.

[keith]

This is not twisting semantics. Words have meaning. It is clear that some people on this board don't understand the terms of art they're throwing around, and it is important that everyone be speaking the same language for rational discussion to occur.

activist is not a term of art - sorry.

Indeed words and there meanings and usage are important, which is why I keep argueing this with you, sorry .

You are continually advancing an arguement that appear to run thus;

- there is a single evident reading of the constitution that any cogent individual can see.

- despite this there are a group of supreme court justices that rule based on their political/social prejudices. These are activist judges.

What you fail to see is that there is no single valid reading of the consitution - never has been never will be. So as I read your arguement your claim that 'activist' is not a rhetorical device but a 'term of art' is bollocks.

If I have missed something please enlighten me.

edit: I think we may want to revist this debate once we have some meat on the bones to argue over - the Oregon case might provide some.

[YankeeRebel]

With respect to Miers, she's being criticized not for a lack of activist history, but for having a lack of any judicial history whatsoever, and so it is therefore feared that she may have activist leanings that have yet been unrevealed.

So the criticism is based on a general fear of what she might become?

[Epee_Pox]

Here's the problems I think most conservatives have with the Miers nomination:


1) She has no judicial experience

2) She has very little public track record indicating what kind of a judge she would be

3) What little track record does exist is not encouraging, but rather indicates a lack of conviction and a tendency to be an appeaser, rather than standing for anything

4) The White House thought it had the conservatives in its back pocket, and the conservatives haven't taken kindly to being taken for granted as automatic supporters of anything the President does, especially when much better candidates are out there

5) The White House further p!ssed off the conservatives by, rather than explaining why Miers would be a good candidate, instead went on the attack, throwing epithets at critics and those who questioned the nomination

6) The White House, even at this late stage, has yet to make a single substantive argument in favor of Miers, or to present any facts about her that tend to indicate what kind of judge she'll be

7) The White House has shown nothing but careless and reckless disregard of conservatives, who are not a unified "base" to be counted on, but in fact have often had a hard time supporting this President, and this nomination appears to be getting close to the straw that breaks the camel's back

[Slim]

Here's the problems I think most conservatives have with the Miers nomination:


1) She has no judicial experience

2) She has very little public track record indicating what kind of a judge she would be

3) What little track record does exist is not encouraging, but rather indicates a lack of conviction and a tendency to be an appeaser, rather than standing for anything

4) The White House thought it had the conservatives in its back pocket, and the conservatives haven't taken kindly to being taken for granted as automatic supporters of anything the President does, especially when much better candidates are out there

5) The White House further p!ssed off the conservatives by, rather than explaining why Miers would be a good candidate, instead went on the attack, throwing epithets at critics and those who questioned the nomination

6) The White House, even at this late stage, has yet to make a single substantive argument in favor of Miers, or to present any facts about her that tend to indicate what kind of judge she'll be

7) The White House has shown nothing but careless and reckless disregard of conservatives, who are not a unified "base" to be counted on, but in fact have often had a hard time supporting this President, and this nomination appears to be getting close to the straw that breaks the camel's back

I think she will get yanked, and I'm not too sad about it either. The problem is that the president knows whoever he sends up is going to be "Borked" in a major way. I dont think anyone of the top tier candidates who has any record to have scrutinized wants to be subjected to the kind of bloodbath that's going to occur. Several made it clear that they wanted to be removed from the short list. So, although she's pretty weak, I get the sense that she was picked to appease the Dems and not give them anything to hammer her with, and that the severe backlash from the Repubs was not expected. Some, yes...but not to this extent. It's definitely a 2nd term tactic and He goofed.

I'd much prefer to see the most qualified candidates be nominated, and if the president and congress strongly believe in them and can't get the cowards who oppose to shutup and vote, invoke the cloture option.

[keith]

I also wonder about how much is also down to the Roberts selection - he certainly isn't either a Scalia or a Thomas type. More of a nice solid respectable small 'c' conservative who appears quite respectful of the federal center.

Perhaps the expectation from the political/economic conservatives was that Bush would actually go out and do what a Republican president finally has a chance to do put a strong 'originalist' majority on the court.

[keith]

I'd much prefer to see the most qualified candidates be nominated, and if the president and congress strongly believe in them and can't get the cowards who oppose to shutup and vote, invoke the cloture option.

Of course the reason this won't happen is that you have;

- a president in his second term, bouncing below 50% approval with no clear successor.

- not to mention the fear that while the Republicans are probably secure in the house for the next generation the senate and presidency aren't.

- and then there is the problem that those cowards could become heros if the nominee ends up being the deciding vote on something really unpopular. So as an example while many republican senators pay lip service to being pro-life they probably aren't convinced that being responsible for the justice who overturned Roe v Wade is going to be a vote winner.

[Maeve_Mari]

I think she will get yanked, and I'm not too sad about it either. The problem is that the president knows whoever he sends up is going to be "Borked" in a major way. I dont think anyone of the top tier candidates who has any record to have scrutinized wants to be subjected to the kind of bloodbath that's going to occur. Several made it clear that they wanted to be removed from the short list. So, although she's pretty weak, I get the sense that she was picked to appease the Dems and not give them anything to hammer her with, and that the severe backlash from the Repubs was not expected. Some, yes...but not to this extent. It's definitely a 2nd term tactic and He goofed.

I'd much prefer to see the most qualified candidates be nominated, and if the president and congress strongly believe in them and can't get the cowards who oppose to shutup and vote, invoke the cloture option.

There have been "lists" of candidates prepared for years - on both sides - as it's been long known that the time would come that new justices would be selected. Part of the problem with the president's selection (s) is that he paid no regard whatsoever to the names on the lists... people carefully vetted for qualification, philosophy, theology, and confirmation ability. While I'm not happy that a name from the conservative list wasn't selected, what irks me is the total disregard or respect selecting a name of a minimally qualified person to the high court! Not only did he not pick a name from the conservative or liberal lists... he didnt even pick someone who could have made a list! That's just as plain ole dumb as picking a man with horse show experience to run the nation's emergency management agency or selecting your heart surgeon from an audition of tap dancer's at Rockefeller Center.

[Slim]

Of course the reason this won't happen is that you have;

- a president in his second term, bouncing below 50% approval with no clear successor.

- not to mention the fear that while the Republicans are probably secure in the house for the next generation the senate and presidency aren't.

- and then there is the problem that those cowards could become heros if the nominee ends up being the deciding vote on something really unpopular. So as an example while many republican senators pay lip service to being pro-life they probably aren't convinced that being responsible for the justice who overturned Roe v Wade is going to be a vote winner.

Heh..we shall see, we shall see.

[YankeeRebel]

The problem is that the president knows whoever he sends up is going to be "Borked" in a major way. I dont think anyone of the top tier candidates who has any record to have scrutinized wants to be subjected to the kind of bloodbath that's going to occur.

The nomination of Roberts is a pretty clear example that not "every" candidate will be vehemently opposed by the Democrats. Roberts was a nominee that was respectable enough that the Democrats couldn't really refuse him. Bork, on the other hand, was such a radical that even many Republicans didn't support him.

A respectable candidate who isn't a radical ideologue would avoid a "bloodbath" much like Roberts did.

[jeff]

It's well to remember that the original "Borking" was the "Saturday Night Massacre" when Bork fired Archibald Cox on Nixon's instructions when Cox requested Oval office tapes. Bork's predecessors resigned rather than commit that act.

[Slim]

It's well to remember that the original "Borking" was the "Saturday Night Massacre" when Bork fired Archibald Cox on Nixon's instructions when Cox requested Oval office tapes. Bork's predecessors resigned rather than commit that act.

Ah, no. The origin of the term came from how he was treated at his judicial hearings. But of course you know this.

Cute perhaps. But incorrect.

[jeff]

To tell the truth, I'm not sure. I don't remember hearing the term "Borking" for the Saturday Night Massacre at the time, but I dimly remember it being referred to much later as "Borking". I'm just don't know without research whether that was a retroactive application of "to Bork". Certainly, his Supreme Court nomination hearings are what popularised the expression. In any case, it's worth remembering that he previously surfaced in the national eye in a disgraceful way.

[Slim]

To tell the truth, I'm not sure. I don't remember hearing the term "Borking" for the Saturday Night Massacre at the time, but I dimly remember it being referred to much later as "Borking". I'm just don't know without research whether that was a retroactive application of "to Bork". Certainly, his Supreme Court nomination hearings are what popularised the expression. In any case, it's worth remembering that he previously surfaced in the national eye in a disgraceful way.

I am sure. You're wrong.