Other Also-Rans
2:16 pm 10/27/05
I feel bad for Harriet Miers; she did nothing wrong, and yet has been roundly trashed on both sides of the political spectrum. She may not have been the best candidate for the US Supreme Court, but she was certainly qualified to serve, in my very non-legal opinion. But she’s not the first nominee to not make it to the highest bench in the land; most people remember that Robert Bork was rejected by the Senate in a close vote, but there are more than twenty other nominees who either withdrew from consideration, like Miers, or were rejected by the Senate.
Check out http://www.worldnetdaily.com. . .Jerome Corsi of the Swiftboat Vets for Truth did an interesting investigative report on Miers when she was head of the Texas Lottery Commission. After you read that you may rethink your position that she did “nothing wrong.” Worldnetdaily also predicted on Oct 13th that she would withdraw her nomination. She was the epitome of the “quid pro quo” nomination. The stuff was hitting the fan, she knew it, Bush knew it and there was no way he was going to let her testify before the Senate.
Wow, Harry Reid said this about the Miers withdrawl. . .
‘”The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination,” the Senate Democratic leader from Nevada said Thursday.
“Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues,” he said. “They want a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals.”
Reid said he had recommended Bush consider Miers because he was impressed with her record of achievement at a major law firm in Texas, where she became the first female president of that state’s bar association.
“In those roles she was a strong supporter of law firm diversity policies and a leader in promoting legal services for the poor,” he said.’
Wow, this just cements the fact that she was the wrong choice. I like the part about “rigid ideologues”. . .I guess to this US Senator (I almost puked typing that) a person who strictly interprets the Constitution as the Founding Fathers wrote it is a rigid ideologue. I suppose the SCOTUS should be more concerned with “diversity policies and. . .promoting legal services for the poor.” Yeah that’s in my copy of the Constitution. We wouldn’t want to promote the “skewed goals” of interpreting the Constitution as it was written. . .heaven’s no. Are the good people of Nevada retarded or just plain stupid?
I disagree that she was “certainly qualified.” I did not see anything in her history suggesting she is a constitutional law expert.
I don’t understand how she could be qualified given she has absolutely no prior experience as a judge. Furthermore she could not rule on any issue that Bush signed off on. I don’t feel bad, she should have known it was coming, even if she didn’t do anything “wrong”
Actually, John, quite a few Supreme Court justices never served as judges prior to their position on the Supreme Court, so her lack of “judge” experience is irrelevant.
And GeeGuy, far be it from me to argue with an attorney, but there is no formal requirement for SCOTUS, is there? A law degree is pretty much the only “barrier to entry,” as far as I know.
From the linked CS article: “There are no set rules for qualification. Although every past justice has been a lawyer, 41 of the 109 justices had no prior judicial experience.”
I agree with this!