What do you think of Harriet Miers
 

What do you think of President Bush's appointee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers? Is she the person who President Bush should have picked? Did he pick her on merit or because of cronyism and loyalty? Will she be a good justice? Will she be confirmed? What is your opinion of her and her appointment?

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ge.../04/159414.html

I want the best possible person to be on the bench--to apply the constitution, not to legislate.

She may be good, but I don't know that. As someone who voted for Bush, I want a brilliant legal mind with a proven track record.

[QUOTE=cordycord,Oct 4 2005, 10:49 PM] http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ge.../04/159414.html

I want the best possible person to be on the bench--to apply the constitution, not to legislate.

She may be good, but I don't know that.

This century there have been many Supreme Court members with no experience as a judge. If a governor or senator can be a justice I guess a president's lawyer could handle it. I still have no idea if she belongs there but wouldn't eliminate her on lack of experience.

You mean the former Texas State Lottery Commissioner who has no experience on the bench? Oh what the Hell, I guess she can't do much worse for SCOTUS than Brown did for FEMA. At least James Dobson seems to like her, and we all know what a well reasoned character he is. :rolleyes:

It's going to be a l-o-n-g three years. :banghead:

I know nothing about her. That is pretty bad.

You forgot my personal favorite, "activist judge". Those judges who don't view the wall separating church and state as more of a curtain.

[QUOTE=ralper,Oct 4 2005, 08:51 PM] What do you think of President Bush's appointee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers?

If she was a judge before the nomination we would have a good track record of how she performs, but she is not.

She is a lawyer and as such should represent whoever hired her. If she didn't she would be far from a good lawyer. If she meddled in cases she personally didn't support, she would not be interested in giving fair representation to her clients but rather some other standard based on her personal belief. So no matter how she feels about it she would have to do a good job (form the prospective of what a lawyer is).

So...lets say she worked against a consumer class action suit for a major corporation (IMHO: DOS users against Microsoft). This case went to trial and her side won. That means she is a good lawyer even if she worked against the public interest (the duty of a judge is to work in the public interest). You can't hold that against her because she is doing what she is supposed to do.

So...it is hard to use her history as a lawyer as anything other then saying that: yes, she can read a law book and understand it. You can not look at her cases as how she will jude nor can you look at her cases to see how she might view the law. As a lawyer, she is going to view them in such a way that she will allow her to win the case. There is no wining side as the judge...you are the referee.

The ONLY thing we can do is look at what areas she has worked in as a lawyer to see what areas of the legal system she is familirar with.

personally: I think she has good qualifications to work as a federal level judge , I just don't know about the Supreme Court. She has never argued a case before the supreme court so it does not look like the has any qualifications at that level (at least as far as her legal career is concerned).

I am also concerned that her practice admitted that it defrauded the investors of their clients (Toshiba, General Motors, Morgan Stanley, PetsMart) for something like $22 million (http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/000501.MBX). That dosn't not speak well for her view of law or her view of the public interest (the investors in this case) as these are publicly traded companies. I will admit given the size of those companies 22million is far from a conspiracy.

However, I do like her because she seems moderate. She gave money to the democratic party and even donated money to Al Gore. (http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_p...riet_Miers.php) So...it is interesting, she used to be a democrat but converted. She seems to think for herself rather then some party line.

There are far worse out there and I think she could do a good job, I just say it with some reservation.

:iagree:

I'm glad that he picked a woman and one that is 60. Except for being :buddies: with W, I would be even more hopeful. As usual, Geo has executed a clever maneuver.

That's what we want from our politicians: cleverness :whome: E.g., pull the wool over their eyes and they won't know what hit 'em