Bush nominates Harriet Miers for Supreme Court

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

She's never been a judge. 

[rjs246]

More unqualified people getting positions in the government under Bush? I don't believe it.

[Geowhizzer]

Not as unusual as you would think.  In fact, one that many consider to be one of the most important justices in the Court's history, Earl Warren, was never a judge before being selected Chief Justice.  He was a district attorney, California Attorney General, and governor, but never a judge.

Wikipedia- Earl Warren

[Rome]

Ahaha.  More idiocy from Bush.

This pick is indefensible.

Yet apparently not.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Apparently, many Democrats like the pick because she's a lot more moderate than anyone they expected from Bush.

We'll see.

[rjs246]

Apparently, many Democrats like the pick because she's a lot more moderate than anyone they expected from Bush.

We'll see.

Sweet. Idiocy followed by idiocy.

Quinby Cronie: 'Uh, election in November, election in November.'
Quinby: 'What?! Again? This stupid country.'

[JTrotter Fan]

Why nominate an old hag that will probably be dead within 10 years??  She looks like death already.  Bush is gay.

[MURP]

[Rome]

I think we're being too hard on Bush.

He hires unqualified morons all the time and nothing bad ever happens.

Stop being such alarmists and drink the Kool Aid, already.

[Wingspan]

george bush needs to run the ball more

[stillupfront]

I think we're being too hard on Bush.

He hires unqualified morons all the time and nothing bad ever happens.

Stop being such alarmists and drink the Kool Aid, already.

Who has he hired that is an unqualified moron? Besides Brown. That was a mistake.

[MURP]

I think we're being too hard on Bush.

He hires unqualified morons all the time and nothing bad ever happens.

Stop being such alarmists and drink the Kool Aid, already.

Who has he hired that is an unqualified moron? Besides Brown. That was a mistake.

easier question.   who wasnt?

[Geowhizzer]

I had typed a response to Romey's earlier comment, but my computer froze and I lost it.  Here goes attempt #2.

Ahaha.  More idiocy from Bush.

This pick is indefensible.

Yet apparently not.

I'm not sure if this was intended to me or not, but I'll respond anyway.

I don't intend to "defend" Bush's pick in any way.  I do not know Ms. Miers' qualifications, which would put me squarely with 95%+ of American citizens, and I cannot pretend to speak to them.

I merely offered some historical perspective (I am a history teacher, after all  ) to show that Bush is not the first to put an apparent judicial neophyte in the Supreme Court.  Earl Warren is considered perhaps the greatest justice of the 20th Century, and he was never a judge before becoming not just a justice, but a Chief Justice.

In reading the articles on Bush's selection, I can speculate that Miers is an attempt to walk a narrow path between trying to achieve a mythical "consensus" while still trying to get someone that believes much the same way as Mr. Bush on the court.  The danger with selecting someone with no judicial track record is that it may be impossible to foretell how she will actually vote once she secures a seat on the bench.  Warren was a selection of Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, who believed that Warren would be a moderately conservative voice on the Court.  Warren instead became well known as an activist (some say Liberal) Justice that led decisions that ended segregation (Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka) and strengthened Fifth Amendment Rights (Miranda vs. Arizona- for those that don't know, this is why the police have to advise you of your rights when you are arrested).  Many conservatives felt betrayed by Warren (in the South a popular bumper sticker read "Impeach Warren"), and even Eisenhower, who moved much more slowly along the path blazed by Warren, came to regret the choice.

Again, historical perspective puts Warren in a much more positive light than in the 1950s and 1960s.  Rather than a "liberal" or activist, he is seen as one who saw and did what was right to place Constitutional protection over all Americans.  But he also was not what he was thought to be when chosen as the Chief Justice (and I believe- though I cannot right now confirm- that the appointment may have been a political promise by Eisenhower for Warren's support in the election of 1952 in bringing California to Eisenhower).

Miers could end up blowing up for Bush and the conservatives in the same way.  Already the hardline pro-lifers are "in doubt" about the selection.  More interesting to me is that she was the pick suggested by some of the Democratic Senators- especially Reid.  This selection, to me, is more about making the confirmation process as peaceful and quiet as possible.  It well could be that Bush doesn't have the force right now to get a stronger ideological ally in the seat, and cannot afford a protracted battle with the Democrats in the Senate.  Miers could be a "safe" pick, one that will glide through the Senate with minimal friction.  However, it is also a gamble- will Miers, who has never been in a judicial seat, vote how Bush would expect her to:  perhaps a bit of a swing vote on some issues, but generally a moderate conservative voice; or will she stun Bush and the U.S. by, like Warren, voting largely with the more liberal justices?

Other justices, even on the current Supreme Court, have surprised the presidents that appointed them:
- Anthony Kennedy (Reagan) has been a swing vote, but more consistently liberal.
- David Souter (Bush, Sr.) had glided towards the liberal wing more and more as time goes on, and even voted against the majority that decided the election of 2000 in favor of Bush, Jr.
- Even O'Connor (Reagan) has been more centrist than originally thought.  She's been largely a swing voter, keeping the Court in balance.
- John Paul Stevens (Ford) has just been a contrary cuss.
- While Democratic appointees have been somewhat more predictable (if fewer in number), Stephen Breyer has been a swing vote on some issues and perhaps a tad less liberal than anticipated. 

The other thing I find interesting is that George W. Bush could conceivably make several more nominations for the Court.
- John Paul Stevens is 85 years old.
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 72 and has already been treated for colon cancer.
- Antonin Scalia is 69 (I believe he's been treated for cancer as well, but do not have confirmation).
- Anthony Kennedy is 69
- Stephen Breyer is 67
- David Souter is 66

As of right now, Bush still has a little less than 3½ years in office.  It's a good chance that he'll name at least 1, and perhaps 2 or even 3 (probably not a good chance of this many), of those Justice's replacements.  President Bush could have a lingering effect on this nation's judicial direction for at least the next two or three decades- more so than any Presidents in my recent memory.  Richard Nixon named four in his 5+ years as President.  Eisenhower named five justices in his eight years.  Franklin Roosevelt named nine justices during his 12+ years in office, and almost earned the distinction of being just the second sitting president to have named the entire Supreme Court (one of his nominees replaced and earlier Roosevelt justice)- of course Washington was the first.

On a side note:  Roosevelt also proposed through a congressional ally the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, also known as the Court-Packing Bill.  This bill would have allowed a President to name a new Justice to the Supreme Court when a sitting Justice turned 70.  The bill was an attempt to circumvent Supreme Court justices that opposed FDR's New Deal laws.  Though the bill died in Congress, the message got through:  Owen Josephus Roberts, who had before consistently voted against New Deal laws, suddenly began voting in favor of them, switching the majority to FDRs side.

Imagine if Bush tried that... 

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

FDR paved the way for this country to be forever in debt and the people in it to be moochers extraordinaire.

[mussa]

i heard she was his personal lawyer for some time.  go figure