Tweet
A Justice Harriet MIERS (according to ABC News)...
More info as it becomes available...
More info as it becomes available...
-
-
More info:
Oct 3, 7:11 AM EDT
Bush Chooses Miers for Supreme Court
By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush has chosen Harriet Miers, White House counsel and a loyal member of the president's inner circle, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, a senior administration official said Monday.
If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court.
Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.
Without a judicial record, it's difficult to know whether Miers would dramatically move the court to the right. She would fill the shoes of O'Connor, a swing voter on the court for years who has cast deciding votes on some affirmative action, abortion and death penalty cases.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. -
Wow, another completely unqualified appointment from Team BCE. What a shocker..... and just in time to get the crimes of BugMan, Scooter, and KKKarl off the front page
Eternally Under the Authority of Satan
Originally posted by SockfuckerComment
-
i'm sure she's a qualified attorney. i'm sure she has a very high understanding of the law.
the job of a supreme court justice is to either agree with, or correct the work of other judges. i'd definitely prefer to have someone who's spent time as a judge.
(and no, i don't care if there were democratically appointed justices without judicial experience. i'd disagree with all of them, too.)Comment
-
Judicial experience should be the primary question here. Roberts only had a lousy 2 years on the bench, and the Chimp made him Chief Justice.Originally posted by knuckleboner
i'm sure she's a qualified attorney. i'm sure she has a very high understanding of the law.
the job of a supreme court justice is to either agree with, or correct the work of other judges. i'd definitely prefer to have someone who's spent time as a judge.
(and no, i don't care if there were democratically appointed justices without judicial experience. i'd disagree with all of them, too.)
To use a sports analogy here, NFL referees have a high understanding of the law, in this case the rules of professional football. That does not qualify them to step into the game as a star quarterback, let alone at the Super Bowl, as Roberts just did.Eternally Under the Authority of Satan
Originally posted by SockfuckerComment
-
yeah, i agree. roberts' experience was also certainly limited.
and, regarding the NFL; full disclosure: i don't know who's soul you obtained to have the seahawks kicker clang that upright, but thanks.
Comment
-
Boy, that's a dumb analogy.Originally posted by Satan
Judicial experience should be the primary question here. Roberts only had a lousy 2 years on the bench, and the Chimp made him Chief Justice.
To use a sports analogy here, NFL referees have a high understanding of the law, in this case the rules of professional football. That does not qualify them to step into the game as a star quarterback, let alone at the Super Bowl, as Roberts just did.
My guess is that 100% of NFL quarterbacks know fewer of the rules than those referees that stand on the sidelines, even the rookie refs.Comment
-
at least it wasn't albertognaw on itComment
Comment