Harriet Miers Watch: Criteria to Be Nominated to the United States Supreme Court

Posted 1 CommentPosted in Harriet Miers, Politics, Supreme Court

Supreme court nominee Harriet Miers meets Senator Herbert Kohl (D-WI) in his office in Washington, DC, October 20, 2005. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Republican and Democrat told U.S. Supreme nominee Miers on Wednesday to elaborate on what they criticized as inadequate answers to their questionnaire. At a news conference, Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA), described the written responses by President George W. Bush’s nominee as ‘insufficient,’ and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VA), said some had complained the answers were even ‘insulting.’

Flap over at Patterico posted the following in the comments section of Angry Clam’s post, Speculation:

So, Patrick et. al. tell me what are the qualifications then for a supreme court justice?

I know the qualifications of a good dentist and writing is not one of them.

And you say her writing sucks. Is that a primary qualification or an nomination spoiler? Flap doesn’t read this in the Constitution anywhere.

How about character, integrity, veracity, life experience, business experience, drive etc.. Are these desirable qualifications?

Do you feel that graduating from a tier 2 or tier 3 law school like ALL of you commenting did is an automatic disqualifier? BTW Flap graduated from a premiere tier 1 dental school (USC)and have taught there and does that buy me anymore qualification for appointment to legislative or executive office?

Just some thoughts……

AC posted his reply, My Criteria.

More on AC’s reply later……..

Now, Flap wants to hear from the rest of you.

What are your criteria to be nominated as a supreme court justice?

Comments and/or Trackbacks – Please NO SPAM!

Update #1

Patterico’s Criteria:

1. The ability to write well

2. Analytical ability

3. The ability to read and process information.

Angry Clam’s

1) Some indication of academic excellence- this can be fulfilled by (a) attending a very good school and being on Law Review or Order of the Coif (a top 10% society), (b) holding an appellate clerkship, (c) publishing a number of pieces of quality legal scholarship, or (d) having a successful appellate practice (appellate law is much more academic than the practical and tactical trial practices).

2) Demonstrated and extensive ability with a range of litigation on federal issues, preferably including constitutional law, and preferably at the appellate or Supreme Court level. This can be done through private appellate practice or several years’ of service on the federal bench.

3) Some indication of a consistent philosophy of judging. Note that this need not be as technical or developed as Scalia’s originalism or Breyer’s representation-reinforcement- it may be as basic as Roberts’ Bickelian judicial modesty. I just want something that demonstrates that the nominee has considered how he understands his role as a judge in our system, as well as his method of approaching cases before him.

Notice how there’s no “we need an evangelical” or any other religion, no “we need a woman,” no “she should be from outside the same three schools that most judges come from,” “she needs a good heart,” or any other of the “representational” issues that the White House seems to think are important in an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Hummmmmmm Flap wonders what the other anti-Miers pundits qualifications are?

What are the standards?

HINT: The Constitution is silent on the matter but gives the President the “CALL”.

Harriet Miers Watch: Bush Defends Miers’ Judicial Philosophy

Posted Posted in Harriet Miers, Politics, Supreme Court

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers arrives for a meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, October 18, 2005.

Reuters has Bush defends Miers as having same judicial philosophy.

President George W. Bush, trying to soothe critics from his own Republican Party, said on Thursday he was fulfilling a campaign promise by nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because she shared his judicial philosophy.

Bush’s pick has been criticized by members of his own political party who say they do not know how she would rule on issues important to conservatives because she has never been a judge.

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, on Wednesday criticized Miers’ written answers to a questionnaire as “insufficient” and complained about a “chaotic” confirmation process so far.

The President will not cut and run on this nomination.

Completing Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaires is sooooooo important.

Some of the elitiist conservative pundits want to make Flap gag.

And Arlen Specter….. on the same page as Robert Byrd.

But Bush has steadfastly defended Miers, who is the White House counsel, and said he picked her because she had never been a judge and would bring a “fresh outlook” to the bench.

“She will strictly interpret the Constitution,” Bush said at a news conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

“I said that when I ran for president. I said, ‘If you elect me, I will name people that will have that judicial philosophy,”‘ Bush said.

He said the questionnaire shows Miers’ judicial philosophy, which was the main reason he chose her for the Supreme Court.

“But out of this will come a clear picture of a competent, strong, capable woman who shares the same judicial philosophy that I share,” Bush said.

Let the hearings begin…..get on with it.

Harriet Miers Watch: Senators Say Miers’ Answers Inadequate

Posted Posted in Harriet Miers, Politics, Supreme Court

Dallas Bar Association president Timothy W. Mountz endorses Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice, along with nineteen past Dallas Bar Association presidents at a news conference, Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2005 in Dallas. In back from left to right are: Mark Shank, Molly Steele, Darrell E. Jordon and Robert A. Gwinn.

The ASSociated Press has Senators Say Miers’ Answers Inadequate.

The Borking of Harriet Miers has begun.

Except this time Robert Bork is joining the fracas.

The hearings will begin November 7th.

Flap handicaps confirmation by mid-December.

Harriet Miers Watch: First a “NO”

Posted 1 CommentPosted in Harriet Miers, Politics, Supreme Court

Boxes of questionnaires relating to the nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court arrive on Capitol Hill Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2005, for delivery to the Senate Judiciary Committee which will hold confirmation hearings on the nomination.

The Smoking Gun has Miers’ Pays Her Dues.

Miers also noted that when Sandra Day O’Connor announced in July her intention to retire, “I was asked whether my name should be considered. I indicated at that time that I did not want to be considered.” That stance, of course, changed following the September death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. After initially participating in reviews of “potential nominees to fill a second vacancy,” Miers discovered “that individuals at the White House began considering me as a potential nominee without advising me.”

Flap thinks anyone would have a hard time not to accept the calling of your President.

A link to the completed questionnaire is here and here.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Harriet Miers Watch: Supports Prohibiting Abortions

Posted Posted in Harriet Miers, Politics, Supreme Court

The Associated Press has Miers supported ban on most abortions.

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment banning abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, according to material given to the Senate on Tuesday.

“If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature,” asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.

Miers checked “yes” to that question, and all of the group’s questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep “pro-abortion” people off city health boards and commissions.

The survey was part of the material sent to the Senate with Miers’ Supreme Court questionnaire, according to two sources, one working with the White House and the other with the Senate, speaking on condition on anonymity.

So?

Harriet Miers is PRO-LIFE.

What is the big revelation here?

It is how she votes on the issue when presented to her on the United States Supreme Court that merits attention.

And….. we will not know that until she issues an opinion as a justice.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Harriet Miers Watch: Assurance to Overturn Roe v. Wade?

Posted 1 CommentPosted in Harriet Miers, Politics, Supreme Court

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers (L) meets with Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) in Washington, DC, October 17, 2005.
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has Judgment Call

Did Christian conservatives receive assurances that Miers would oppose Roe v. Wade?

Two days after President Bush announced Harriet Miers’s Supreme Court nomination, James Dobson of Focus on the Family raised some eyebrows by declaring on his radio program: “When you know some of the things that I know–that I probably shouldn’t know–you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice.”

Mr. Dobson quelled the controversy by saying that Karl Rove, the White House’s deputy chief of staff, had not given him assurances about how a Justice Miers would vote. “I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade,” Mr. Dobson said last week. “But even if Karl had known the answer to that–and I’m certain that he didn’t because the president himself said he didn’t know–Karl would not have told me that. That’s the most incendiary information that’s out there, and it was never part of our discussion.”

It might, however, have been part of another discussion. On Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, Mr. Dobson and other religious conservatives held a conference call to discuss the nomination. One of the people on the call took extensive notes, which I have obtained. According to the notes, two of Ms. Miers’s close friends–both sitting judges–said during the call that she would vote to overturn Roe.

Why, of course, James Dobson was given these assurances.

Harriet Miers is an Evangelical “STEALTH” candidate but the Washington PRO-ABORTION elites of the LEFT and RIGHT will never leave this alone.

James Dobson will definitley be subpoenaed to the Senate Judiciary Committee now along with a number of other Pro-Life folks.

But, little will be acknowledged beyond this piece by Fund….. a real friend of the Pro-Life movement…..NOT!

The call was moderated by the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Participating were 13 members of the executive committee of the Arlington Group, an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups, including Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister. Also on the call were Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge.

Mr. Dobson says he spoke with Mr. Rove on Sunday, Oct. 2, the day before President Bush publicly announced the nomination. Mr. Rove assured Mr. Dobson that Ms. Miers was an evangelical Christian and a strict constructionist, and said that Justice Hecht, a longtime friend of Ms. Miers who had helped her join an evangelical church in 1979, could provide background on her. Later that day, a personal friend of Mr. Dobson’s in Texas called him and suggested he speak with Judge Kinkeade, who has been a friend of Ms. Miers’s for decades.

Mr. Dobson says he was surprised the next day to learn that Justice Hecht and Judge Kinkeade were joining the Arlington Group call. He was asked to introduce the two of them, which he considered awkward given that he had never spoken with Justice Hecht and only once to Judge Kinkeade. According to the notes of the call, Mr. Dobson introduced them by saying, “Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think.”

What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, “Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?”

“Absolutely,” said Judge Kinkeade.

“I agree with that,” said Justice Hecht. “I concur.”

Flap read the smoke-signals sent by Dobson early on and blogged this piece, Harriet Miers Watch: Message to the White House From the RIGHT – NEGATIVE.

What the President and Dr. Dobson said was clear without elaboration.

This should enliven the hearings and enbolden the Left to oppose Miers…….

Stay tuned.

Update #1

Richard Reeb over at the Claremont Institute is as “shocked” as Flap calling John Fund the David Stockman of the judicial nomination process.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,