Journal pudge's Journal: Don't LOOK Dumb 16
Maybe you do not understand how someone who has never been a judge could sit on the Supreme Court. That's fine. No reason why you should understand that.
But trust me when I say that when you speak of the circumstance as though it is a crazy thing, that it shouldn't happen, that Bush is stupid or evil for doing it, makes you look dumb. Because you are, in fact, ignorant, and the more strongly you express your ignorance the more dumb you look.
About a third of our Supreme Court justices have had no previous experience as a judge (including chief justices William Rehnquist and Byron White). Miers, in this regard, is not an exception. And in fact, many in the Senate -- in both parties -- were hoping for someone who wasn't a judge to be nominated.
So fine, don't understand how someone who is not a judge could serve on the Supreme Court. But realize your lack of understanding doesn't change the fact that there's nothing unusual or wrong about it, and expressing your lack of understanding in strong terms pretty much just makes you look stupid.
(Note: I am not saying Miers is a good choice; I don't know much about her, and have no opinion at this time. I'm just saying if she is a bad choice, it is not for lack of experience as a judge.)
You are right on this point (Score:1)
There is no farm system for Supreme Court judges, and quite a large number had never served as judges before, but the Miers appointment doesn't pass the smell test. Her resume is just not very impressive (Roberts' was), and were she not close to Bush she would not have been on anyone's list.
Apparently, this had something to do with Harry Reid, but I don't think the truth is entirely out yet. She's not a Robert Bork, though, and probably doesn't have a nanny or weed problem, so will probably muddle throug
Re:You are right on this point (Score:2)
the Miers appointment doesn't pass the smell test. Her resume is just not very impressive (Roberts' was)
Says you. I looked at it, and in some ways, her resume is far more impressive than Roberts'. She has less experience with the Supreme Court, but she has a lot more litigation experience, including at the federal level, and if Roberts is "a lawyer's lawyer" as was said, then she is a lawyer's lawyer's lawyer.
Her long experience with the
Re:You are right on this point (Score:1)
I'd much rather see the elite make it to the top then the well-connected. I think the evidence is in on the latter - it doesn't work.
It doesn't matter how Miers "performs" before the Judiciary committee. That's not important to me. People were praising Roberts' qualifications before the hearings. He dodged the toughest questions (you can argue that he should have, but dodge he did). Everyone thought he was very bright - he is. He came from the top of a top drawer law school and had a large paper trai
Re:You are right on this point (Score:2)
I would rather the elite get stuffed into little boxes and sent down the river where they can crash on the rocks and pat themselves on the back about how great they think each other is.
Not that I am a fan of the well-connected either.
I think the evidence is in on the latter - it doesn't work.
So RFK was a terrible AG?
It doesn't matter how Miers "performs" before the Judiciary committee. That's not important to me. People were praising R
Re:You are right on this point (Score:1)
Re:You are right on this point (Score:2)
Yes, what was stupid was saying "even made it to": the directl implication that she would not reach that level of accomplishment or higher without Bush, when the record shows she's had far greater accomplishments than that, without Bush.
I knew all that about the Texas Bar, but how much of that is an accomplishment, and how much is being well popular with other lawyers and well connected (and willing to run)?
How much
Re:You are right on this point (Score:2)
I did read it a few hours ago, and it is not devastating in the least. It barely mentions Miers, and gives no reason at all to oppose her. It is a strong call for a thorough process in the Senate, which I am in favor of. That is, he is right that the Senate should dig deeply into her thoughts about the Constitution; however, it is not true -- as far as we can tell -- that she has no such s
Not unusual, but (Score:1)
About a third of our Supreme Court justices have had no previous experience as a judge . . . there's nothing unusual or wrong about it
Okay, I'm convinced. There is nothing unusual about appointing a Supreme Court justice who has never before been a judge.
But it still seems strange to me. I couldn't get a job as a Fortune 500 CEO if I didn't have at least some experience as an executive. I wouldn't be given my own prime time network TV show if I didn't have some experience as an entertainer. Why is
Re:Not unusual, but (Score:2)
Your comparision with getting a CEO job doesn't fly. CEO is a merit-based position.
SCOTUS position is a political-based position that requires nomination by POTUS and approval from the CONGRESS. Nothing ironic about it.
It is really the fault of the media not to point this criteria out in BIG LETTER. Just read the Constitution of the United States.
ANYBODY CAN BE A appointed judge of the SCOTUS (, even a felon)! That is what makes America great!
Re:Not unusual, but (Score:2)
Your analogies are flawed. A better analogy might be getting a prime time network TV show when you've merely been a standup comic for years, with no real acting expe
Re:Not unusual, but (Score:2)
Your analogy is flawed. Many Supreme Court justices have had no experience as judges. Most (with some very notable exceptions) have had extensive experience with
Wow (Score:2)
Wow. Are people actually saying that?
By Constitutional law, at least 50% of our quadrennial elections must result in the election of a person to serve as President who has never been a President.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
In this light, I'd be interested if statistics for governors->presidents were comparable to judges->SCOTUS nomine
Re:Wow (Score:2)
from what I've seen (Score:2)
Re:from what I've seen (Score:2)