Dagmar wrote:
Words can not express how just *stunned* I am at this.

This woman has NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. NONE. NADA. NEVER BEEN A JUDGE.

Apparently her major qualification is that she was helping Bush pick the *other* judicial appointees. At least she wasn't previously presiding over Cat Fancier judges or something.

I am just stunned. The Senate are going to tear her into little bloody chunks.

An active court is an activist court... so an incompetent court is an effective court? :shrug:

Dagmar wrote:
Words can not express how just *stunned* I am at this.

This woman has NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. NONE. NADA. NEVER BEEN A JUDGE.

Apparently her major qualification is that she was helping Bush pick the *other* judicial appointees. At least she wasn't previously presiding over Cat Fancier judges or something.

I am just stunned. The Senate are going to tear her into little bloody chunks.

Who's cock did she have to suck?

Dagmar wrote:
Words can not express how just *stunned* I am at this.

This woman has NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. NONE. NADA. NEVER BEEN A JUDGE.

Apparently her major qualification is that she was helping Bush pick the *other* judicial appointees. At least she wasn't previously presiding over Cat Fancier judges or something.

I am just stunned. The Senate are going to tear her into little bloody chunks.

The has the job because she's from fucking Texas. Nothing else qualifiers her for the job.

From CNN:

"Miers, 60, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the State Bar of Texas and Dallas Bar Association. She also was a member of the Dallas City Council."

At least the conservatives are reeling at how utterly stupid the White House is on this one.

From CNN:

" 'The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas who had been the president's lawyer,' said conservative activist Manuel Miranda of the Third Branch Conference, referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson's pick to the high court in 1965."

-janelane, my flabber is gasted

Dagmar wrote:
Words can not express how just *stunned* I am at this.

This woman has NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. NONE. NADA. NEVER BEEN A JUDGE.

Apparently her major qualification is that she was helping Bush pick the *other* judicial appointees. At least she wasn't previously presiding over Cat Fancier judges or something.

I am just stunned. The Senate are going to tear her into little bloody chunks.

Can I get nominated next? I've got some experience from my job?

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Dagmar wrote:
Words can not express how just *stunned* I am at this.

This woman has NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. NONE. NADA. NEVER BEEN A JUDGE.

Apparently her major qualification is that she was helping Bush pick the *other* judicial appointees. At least she wasn't previously presiding over Cat Fancier judges or something.

I am just stunned. The Senate are going to tear her into little bloody chunks.

Can I get nominated next? I've got some experience from my job?

I think you have too much book learning.

terratogen wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Dagmar wrote:
Words can not express how just *stunned* I am at this.

This woman has NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. NONE. NADA. NEVER BEEN A JUDGE.

Apparently her major qualification is that she was helping Bush pick the *other* judicial appointees. At least she wasn't previously presiding over Cat Fancier judges or something.

I am just stunned. The Senate are going to tear her into little bloody chunks.

Can I get nominated next? I've got some experience from my job?

I think you have too much book learning.

Damn! Just because I can form a complete sentence I'm ineligible to work in Bush Administration. It's the Bush "Hundred Flowers" campaign!

Elonka wrote:
Interesting. My first reaction was, "What the hell? He's picked a personal friend with no judicial experience?" But, upon doing more research, I'm warming up to her. She seems to have proponents on both sides of the aisle. And there are even conservatives who *don't* like her, which gives her a bit more credibility in my book. ;)

As for whether or not she's ever been a judge, I don't see that as a problem. Many Supreme Court justices did not have any prior judicial experience. For example, Rehnquist!

One other aspect to the choice: Before I heard about Miers, I'd been reading about how Bush was hinting that he wanted a Hispanic. So I figured he was going to nominate Gonzales. When I heard he'd chosen someone else, I was actually relieved!

Having said all that, I *don't* know a whole lot about Miers yet, and I'm looking forward to learning more. But from the information I've collected thus far, she's looking like a good choice.

Elonka

Nothing I've seen indicates that she has any experience with constitutional law whatsoever. Which makes her wholly unqualified. Or do I have it wrong? Isn't this exactly the kind of, "appoint my friend" cronyism that led to an incompetent FEMA head?

Elonka wrote:
...

Having said all that, I *don't* know a whole lot about Miers yet, and I'm looking forward to learning more. But from the information I've collected thus far, she's looking like a good choice.

Elonka

Euh. Some good analysis over on Volokh.com.

The main objection I'm seeing and agreeing with (beyond the obvious 'we know nothing about her') is that she's never argued in front of the Supreme Court or had to really consider questions of Constitutional law. She a litigation attorney, which is really a different area of the law.

Doorslam wrote:

Elonka wrote:
...

Having said all that, I *don't* know a whole lot about Miers yet, and I'm looking forward to learning more. But from the information I've collected thus far, she's looking like a good choice.

Elonka

Euh. Some good analysis over on Volokh.com.

The main objection I'm seeing and agreeing with (beyond the obvious 'we know nothing about her') is that she's never argued in front of the Supreme Court or had to really consider questions of Constitutional law. She a litigation attorney, which is really a different area of the law.

Well, clearly this appointment will help to bring the constitution back in line with current litigation, and put the rest of the amendments out of their misery.

Elonka wrote:
Upon doing more research, I'm warming up to her. She seems to have proponents on both sides of the aisle... from the information I've collected thus far, she's looking like a good choice.

I was hoping you'd be prompted to follow this up with some specific references, but that didn't happen so I thought I'd ask. Who is supporting Miers? The only support I've seen so far comes from Evangelical Christians who support her because she is an Evangelical Christian.

Decius wrote:

Elonka wrote:
Upon doing more research, I'm warming up to her. She seems to have proponents on both sides of the aisle... from the information I've collected thus far, she's looking like a good choice.

I was hoping you'd be prompted to follow this up with some specific references, but that didn't happen so I thought I'd ask. Who is supporting Miers? The only support I've seen so far comes from Evangelical Christians who support her because she is an Evangelical Christian.

Check this article about the support from Senate Democratic Leader Reid.