[color=green]Originally titled: US Supreme court nominee[/color]
Bush’s nominee to replace O’Conner has been announced
cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/ … index.html
Let the games begin
Is she a judge? 
Nope, no judicial experience.
She’s an unknown at this point. It’ll be interesting to see over the next few weeks what, if anything, will be found in the public record that can give us an indication of her judicial philosophy (other than her close relationship to Bush). Since she has never served as a judge, we will have to rely on the release of White House memos that she may have written while serving in the Administration, law journal publications, etc.
She has a tough act to follow. Roberts came across as smooth, likeable, extremely intelligent and a Constitutional legal expert at his confirmation hearings. I’d be surprised if Miers has the same level of expertise on Constitutional matters as Roberts does given the fact that Roberts not only served as a federal court judge but also argued before the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. If she stumbles on cases, the press may hammer her because of their very recent and vivid memory of Roberts. He set the bar very high.
The confirmation hearings provide an excellent tutorial on Constitutional law basics, as was the case in the Roberts’ hearings. I look forward to round 2.
Does she have a penis? 
The public might overlook her lack of experience if she demonstrates some cojones.
LOL
Well I did read in the Dallas paper (Dallasnews.com) that Bush had referred to her as a pitbull in size 6 shoes.
Actually, I think that ultimately the lack of judicial experience is going to be less of a factor in confirmation than the fact that she is basically Bush’s personal attorney. 20-something previous SC justices (including Rehnquist) had no prior judicial experience, and law profs and other high powered attorneys without judicial experience get appellate court nominations all the time. One can probably assume that if she’s got the legal skills to represent the white house, then she’s sufficiently competent to make the transition to the courts.
The real issue will be the politics of it, because it really just doesn’t look good for Bush to appoint his lawyer to the Supreme Court.
So she’s the classic case of “sleeping to the top.”
Was Rehnquist even that good on the bench. I mean he was against desegregation and abortion rights. Obviously out of touch with the comtempory public.
Who else does Bush want to appoint to the bench? His freaking gardener of 15 years.
Well I thought Rehnquist was so-so at best, though I’m sure you’ll find hardcore republicans that think he was a hero. 
I mostly cited him because he’s someone that people actually knew that didn’t have prior judicial experience.
I don’t have a problem with her not having any judicial experience, as has been stated man SC judges never had that experience before getting the job.
From what I’ve read so far neither the far right nor the far left are too happy with this – so maybe she isn’t so bad after all!
What kind of law did she practice in Texas?
Personal bankruptcy, DUI traffic violations, Divorce lawyer…
Help me out here.
Commercial litigator: clients included Microsoft and Disney, started with Bush in 1994 as general counsel and has worked for him since. Only political experience is with the Dallas City Council, was head of Texas bar association while Bush was governor, graduate of SMU in Dallas for both undergrad and law school and clerked for a judge in Texas just after law school.
That’s pretty much the story on her, nobody really knows her position on a lot of issues, but one would guess she’s pretty conservative given that Bush nominated her. The Limbaugh types seem to be concerned that Bush may have been appeasing the left by nominating a woman who might not be as hard core conservative as they’d like. The left is pissed because they figure she’s just another Bush crony that’s going to try to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Well let’s hope she never aborted GW love child.
Seems like she’s your typical corporate lawyer that bills for xerox and fedex.
That sounds about right. I’d certainly never read much about her until the rumors started last week.
Redandy also seems to be correct that Bush’s conservative supporters are upset. Most conservative writers I’ve read so far are livid. Don’t think I’ve read a single positive article yet. “Too old.” “Too liberal.” “Not smart enough.”
Most of the reaction seems to be connecting it up with other poor personnel decisions Bush has made (Michael Brown being a recent example), and portraying this pick as a massive political mistake at best, and a sell-out/betrayal at worst.
Will be interesting to see how things develop as more information comes out…
Gives new meaning to the term “bush league.”
Yeah. Personally, I’m doing my best to keep an open mind about her since the truth is that we will probably have to wait not days or weeks but years before we find out what kind of justice she will be (assuming she’s confirmed, of course). But at this point it is tough for me to avoid thinking that Bush may have just shot himself in the foot. Again. shrug
Yeah. Personally, I’m doing my best to keep an open mind about her since the truth is that we will probably have to wait not days or weeks but years before we find out what kind of justice she will be (assuming she’s confirmed, of course). But at this point it is tough for me to avoid thinking that Bush may have just shot himself in the foot. Again. shrug[/quote]
Who knows. The liberals are warming up to her. But don’t know yet if it’s because they plan to smal Bush for this one too.
Could be a bone thrown by Bush. If they don’t confirm her, I suggest Bill Bennet. 
That’ll learn them Dems.
Just when Bush had stopped digging a very deep hole and started climbing towards the daylight (Katrina mea culpa and John Roberts nomination) he starts digging again by apparently reverting to cronyism.
The thing is, I don’t know enough about her to have a problem with her personally. For all I know she might make a great judge or a terrible one. That Bush is choosing her as opposed to a lot of others is really what gets me. Surely there was another woman out there who was qualified enough and PC enough to pass confirmation. Frankly I expect the democrats to fight harder and the republicans to be less enthusiastic about supporting her. In fact, she may not pass confirmation.
On the other hand, Bush has managed to unite the country on one thing at least.
It’s important that our Supreme Court be more diverse in terms of ethnicity and gender. Too many old white guys on the bench in my opinion, so I’m happy to see a woman nominated here. But it also seems to me that judicial experience is important if you’re going to sit on the highest court in the land (and I’m not sure that the numerous precedents of non-judges being nominated changes my opinion on this). Add to this Bush’s piss-poor record on choosing reasonable and competent people, and I’m pretty darned skeptical about this nomination. That said, like Hobbes, I’m eager to learn more about her and her competencies and views before passing judgment.