Okay, well as long as Bush trusts her...
So, everyone remembers the John Roberts nomination, since he was just confirmed this past week. I remember back when the politicians were complaining about his lack of qualifications. They said he didnt have enough judicial experience, and they didnt know enough about his politics. Well, I had to disagree with them. Roberts was the MOST qualified person to EVER be nominated for the Supreme Court. His former positions had put him in the Supreme Court as a lawyer, and he argued hundreds of cases in front of them. Being a Constitutional lawyer, he probably knows the Constitution better than most of the Supreme Court judges. Of course, anyone who has read my earlier articles can see what I think about Supreme Court judges. I hope I have made my point that he was qualified. Well, obviously, this is not what I am writing about here. I am writing about the anti-Roberts, and she goes by the name of Harriet Miers.
Now, when I say "anti-Roberts", I am not trying to imply she is evil or bad, but rather that she fulfills the complaints that politicians staged against Roberts. Unlike Roberts, we really dont know anything about her. She is a lawyer, plain and simple. Though she has done some nice things, such as headed a state bar association, as well as a couple other things, she has never been a judge. Though Roberts was only a judge for a short amount of time, his decisions gave alot of insight into his opinions on a couple issues, but his major qualification was his job as a Supreme Court lawyer. Miers has done no such thing.
Essentially, Bush is asking us to put her in the most important court in our nation, to decide the future of our country, only with his assurance that "she is a good person". Now, this is something we cant do. We dont know if she is a good judge, and we dont know how well she knows constitutional law. Politicians who support her have one thing to say. They say we need to wait for the senate judiciary panel hearings to learn more about her. Unfortunately, I believe that these hearings dont really tell you anything. Because the candidates are allowed to deny to answer any question, they dont have to give their opinions on anything. I dont actually believe it is necessary for them to give their opinions though, because ones opinion is not something that should serve a big role when deciding constitutionality. The problem is that Miers has no experience with constitutional doctrine, and so her rulings from the bench will be more likely based on her opinions. As my earlier article says, I want them to rule in my favor when they eventually do rule using their opinions, setting our court up with candidates like this only furthers the problems with the Supreme Court that we already have.
Any comments?
Now, when I say "anti-Roberts", I am not trying to imply she is evil or bad, but rather that she fulfills the complaints that politicians staged against Roberts. Unlike Roberts, we really dont know anything about her. She is a lawyer, plain and simple. Though she has done some nice things, such as headed a state bar association, as well as a couple other things, she has never been a judge. Though Roberts was only a judge for a short amount of time, his decisions gave alot of insight into his opinions on a couple issues, but his major qualification was his job as a Supreme Court lawyer. Miers has done no such thing.
Essentially, Bush is asking us to put her in the most important court in our nation, to decide the future of our country, only with his assurance that "she is a good person". Now, this is something we cant do. We dont know if she is a good judge, and we dont know how well she knows constitutional law. Politicians who support her have one thing to say. They say we need to wait for the senate judiciary panel hearings to learn more about her. Unfortunately, I believe that these hearings dont really tell you anything. Because the candidates are allowed to deny to answer any question, they dont have to give their opinions on anything. I dont actually believe it is necessary for them to give their opinions though, because ones opinion is not something that should serve a big role when deciding constitutionality. The problem is that Miers has no experience with constitutional doctrine, and so her rulings from the bench will be more likely based on her opinions. As my earlier article says, I want them to rule in my favor when they eventually do rule using their opinions, setting our court up with candidates like this only furthers the problems with the Supreme Court that we already have.
Any comments?
posted by Brad Green at 5:59 PM
4 comments
