Remember Harriet for SCOTUS?

[cwcwmack]

Gawd all this SCOTUS talk got me to thinking about the Harriet Miers selection for O'conners seat in 2005...

Lmfao... could it get any better? The sheer comedic value of Bushie picking his Texas Gov office counsel... even the right went nuts!

:rofl:

I think O will make a bit more reasoned a choice...

:sarcasm:



>>Miers had clerked for the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, but had never served as a judge. She had neither taught nor written to any substantial extent on law. In private practice, as a corporate litigator, Miers had courtroom experience, but a scant and undistinguished track record of litigating in federal court (almost none litigating constitutional issues), and had never argued a case before the Supreme Court.

Speaking to Miers's lack of credentials, the White House quickly advanced the defense that 41 of the 110 Supreme Court Justices appointed to date had never served as a judge prior to their nomination. Some examples during the 20th century include Louis Brandeis (appointed 1916), Felix Frankfurter (1939), William O. Douglas (1939), Robert Jackson (1941), Earl Warren (1953), Abe Fortas (1965), Lewis Powell (1972), and William Rehnquist (1972). The White House's attempt to use this to placate opposition at best had no valence, and at worst, backfired: offering the comparison to Fortas or particularly Warren further inflamed opposition among conservatives, who do not look upon either as a great exemplar of the kind of Supreme Court justice desired. The White House also argued that 10 of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933 were appointed from positions within the President's administration (as was the case with Miers.) These Justices include the aforementioned Powell, Warren, Frankfurter, and Douglas, as well as Arthur Goldberg and Tom C. Clark.

Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), who had previously floated Miers as an example of an acceptable nominee (further inflaming conservative hostility), issued a statement:

In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.<<

[DrToast]

1. Even the right went nuts?

Especially the right wing went nuts. They hated her more than the left did.

[NYC Liberal]

2. I think we on the left realized that if Miers got shot down

the next one would be a lot worse and far more to the right, just to calm the right-wingers down.

[Orsino]

3. I'm not sure it was a matter of better or worse.

The Miers nomination was a Bush-Cheney power grab, just another of many attempts by the Executive Branch to assimilate/negate the other branches. They wanted a puppet, and didn't care how ridiculous they made themselves appear. At first, anyway.

Eventually, they realized they had to nominate someone with at least a veneer of intellect and independence.

[Rebubula]

4. Puppets...

...sometimes they don't work out...just look at the retiring Justice Souter.

I am sure that Bush41 still regrets that pick.