7 thoughts on “miers withdraws

  • While the two parties you mentioned are good scapegoats in many instances, this is not one of them. Her nomination was a poor choice by W. Thankfully, THIS mistake causes very little harm.

  • while I don’t doubt she might not have been a very good candidate. what do you have to base your judgement of her? are you saying she was a bad candidate simply because of you blatant disdain for W? or are you basing you judgement on papers she filed some 15 – 20 years ago? because we all belive the same things we believed some 15 – 20 years ago now don’t we? we have the same thought processes and same ideals all of our life. they never change. so that would be a good reason to believe that miers hasn’t changed her mind and thoughts on any of the issues that she discussed and wrote about back then.

  • First, a slight correction, I do not have a blatant disdain for W. (That is my wife.) I simply disagree with many of his policies and decisions and do not believe that he is deserved or qualified to be the leader of the free world.

    I really know very little about Miers or things she may have written 20 years ago, but I DO know that she has never been a judge. Now, I am sure that she knows the law forwards and backwards and is probably an excellent attorney and advisor to W. However, none of that makes her a good judge. I know music, but that doesn’t mean they are going to ask me to conduct the ASO anytime soon!

  • so you are saying that one of your main qualifications of a supreme court justice is that they have been a judge. fair enough. how long should they have been a judge? 5 years? 10 years? is it based upon the number of cases they have presided over? what is the criteria and why should it matter if the individual is qualified and knows the law?

  • I would think 10 years on the bench should be the absolute minimum. In my mind, there are two sides to the judge coin.

    First, the proper personality and frame of mind must be in place. A fair, unbiased id must be present 24-7-365. Much of this quality is inate.

    Second is knowledge of the law. At all levels and especially in the Supreme Court, precedence rules. It takes much careful deliberation to overturn an applicable preceding decision. Without the knowledge base that can only be obtained through years of practicing and judging the law, a Supreme Court justice would be hopelessly lost.

    In addition, not all attorneys make good judges. Either they do not possess the proper attitude, or they have practiced on one side for so long that they are permanently biased.

  • Ok, I understand what you are saying.
    Let me pose this question to you: “Do you believe a born again conservative christian judge would make a good supreme court justice if said judge had the qualified experience that you outline above?” or do you feel that the only qualified judge would be one that does not consider personal, religious beliefs in the interpretation of the law?

  • Why do you get to ask all the questions?

    The primary job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the law. A perfect interpretation would render the exact intent of the law without coloration. However, problems arise when the law is not clearly defined or in some cases, a situation lies outside of the bounds of the current law. This is when a true “judgement” must be made. Ideally, I believe that a judge should not allow his own personal beliefs enter in to his decisions. Realistically, all of our thought processes are shaped by our past experiences; therefore, our judgements are never without bias. No doubt, that is why there is a panel of nine individuals.

Comments are closed.