Some Perspective On Miers Nomination

h/t Cindi - Interesting, given some of the arguments against Miers.

John Marshall is widely revered as "the great Chief Justice," but before joining the Supreme Court in 1801 he had never served a day in judicial robes and lost the only case he argued at the high court. Earl Warren had worked for 18 years as a prosecutor and was three times elected governor of California. But he had no prior judicial experience. Nor did William Rehnquist, Felix Frankfurter, and Louis Brandeis.

Comments

[TheAlamo]

Heck, if that's the case ya'll should nominate me. I would work to stike down every un-constitutional action that has been perpetrated upon us for the last 50 years...at least.

Fat chance of ANYBODY with that philosophy getting on the bench!

But, for Cindi, I would make horseback riding mandatory in each state! :)
Bet that gets her vote!

[Cindi in PA]

Bet that gets her vote!

Posted by: TheAlamo | Oct 10, 2005 6:44:23 PM

Oh yeah, it would.
And if only the nomination were that simple. Instead we have idiots expecting to get answers to stupid questions. Look at C. Thomas. He had no clue what he was even talking about.
Our district justices here are elected to office, no need for a law degree. JQ Public make the best judges in those positions, lawyers the worst.

[EB]

Comparing Brandeis to Miers? I understand the point about not being former judges, but Brandeis graduated first in his class at Harvard, and made his mark as a successful appellate attorney, as well as an arbitrator, before being nominated and becoming one of the most respected jurists in Supreme Court history. Even Harriet would doubtless refrain from making such a comparison.

The issue here is whether she is a scholar of Constitutional law and the vast history of the complex cases decided under it, with all of their subtle nuances and distinctions. While we know precious little about her views, we clearly do know that since she has never been a judge, she has no experience dealing with Constitutional interpretation as a sitting federal judge, and unless I am missing something, her record as an attorney falls woefully short in the federal appellate arena, as well. (Her former firm did have an Appellate Department, and I have checked but have been unable to find any mention of her involvement in appellate cases at all, either state or federal. In fact, according to the AP, "Miers was listed as the attorney of record on relatively few cases during her time as a litigator," so even her trial experience was apparently somewhat limited. This was surprising, given her long tenure at the firm.)

As Spectre correctly noted, she is probably boning up on con law with a "crash course" right now. We'll soon be able to determine to what extent she is able to answer the nubby questions of interpretation and precedent that await her.

As far as the other aspects of the job, it would be interesting to find out if Supreme Court justices have a "judge school" to attend, as do first-time trial judges at the lowest state court levels. I checked the National Judicial College website and it is, of course, skewed heavily towards lower courts. Query whether SCOTUS offers on-the-job-training!

[TheAlamo]

Our district justices here are elected to office, no need for a law degree. JQ Public make the best judges in those positions, lawyers the worst.

Posted by: Cindi in PA | Oct 11, 2005 12:30:18 AM

I think the reason for that is that a pre-requisite for being a lawyer is the total lack of common sense. (then...when they can prove they ahve absolutely none...they run for office!)