British Expatriate Network

Yeah but you tend not to nominate your lawyer though.

I think the main difference between Miers and others who have never been judges is that people like Rehnquist was classed as exceptional. He had a M.A. in political science and a second M.A., in government (attended Harvard). Rehnquist then went on to graduated first in his class from Stanford Law School. He also served as a clerk on the Supreme court.

Miers on the other hand graduated from Southern Methodist University and then went on to become a commercial litigator for 30 years. She appears to be no different than 10,000 other practicing attorneys in the country.

I have no doubt that there are many outstanding candidates out there of Rehnquist’s or Sandra Day O’Connor caliber. It makes no sense to nominate someone who is just ‘average’.

Then again, the American people did elect a man who would not even be considered average by many.

Bingo. Miers hasn't even practiced constitutional law.

My favorite write up so far comes from Rich Lowry -

"Just talked to a very pro-Bush legal type who says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely."

If you are not thrilled with the current administration, then don't read the following on a full stomach..

http//www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20041029.html

Don't you think it amazing that the Unmaned commentor knows so much about someone who they claim has done nothing :?: Sour grapes, perhaps :?:

I don't know why you think that everyone on the court should have the same qualifications, I don't know if this lady's are the result of someone who started with advantages and didn't do much, or someone who did magnificantly after coming from disadvantages. Do You know :?:

I have experience of working with brilliant people and there is a tendency to go off into the far distance, often, it was the dullard who brought things back to earth. I like diversity in all dimensions.

I just listened to George bush's news conference. Four questions on Harriet Miers, this allowed him to repeat himself over and over again, and avoid other important questions. Bummer, I sometimes wonder if they prime the pump.

No real surprises there a bog standard staffer could have done the same job and probably did. All boilerplate answers to questions they chose to let through, and all done within days of the election when all the little Bush monkeys were whipped up to a nice brainless fervor.

Over the last year the tide has turned ever so slightly and the monkeys are going a bit feral. I wouldn't say they've come down out of the trees and taken up tools or anything radical, but some pretty mindless Bushies I know have flung bitter poo in the monkey king’s direction. What floors me is that it’s mostly over the price of petrol. Given all the things Shrub has cocked up over the years this is really laughable. But who am I to look a gift horse in the mouth?

While I don't think we should celebrate mediocrity by awarding a seat on the highest court in the land to some random ambulance chaser, I do approve of the political arrogance displayed. One of my fondest wishes is that it will alienate a significant portion of his base. Also nice would be to see either a clash between the white house and the senate republicans or a rubber stamp approval showcasing the complete lack of individual thought in the organization.

I’m not convinced any of this will make a bit of difference though. I’m with Annie on this one, a long cold winter where people with large vehicles and large houses feel the pinch, might make for a glorious spring.

OK - without fail the greatest quote on the Miers nomination there ever will be has to be Howard Dean talking to Chris Matthews - Matthews asks him if the White House can claim executive privilege not to release certain paperwork -

http//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9601984/

MATTHEWS Do you believe that the president can claim executive privilege?

DEAN Well, certainly the president can claim executive privilege. But in the this case, I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called.


lol

I demand this become part of the lexicon of congressional hearings. I would pay a substantial sum of money to hear Senator Biden ask Harriet Miers if she is trying to hide the salami. And I would dearly love to hear her retort.

lol

Thought that phrase was universal in English speaking cultures?

Well spotted Mr. B.

It's interesting to note that Harriet Miers didn't go to an ivy league school.

Most of her detractors did go to an ivy league school.

Most of her defenders didn't go to an ivy league school.

This is not "across the board" but definately a trend.

This is one taht we never get a handle on .

reading all info available about her it sems she doesnt fit into any established pigeonhole 9 i rather like folks who are independent thinking ) .

she did work for a commercial law firm * locke lidell and sapp * wether it would be considered large by law firms standards i dont know (ask lawyers about that ) it did have 400 attorneys inder its name .. "are you a big fish in a small pond ar a large fish in a small pond and does it matter ????

She was the first women CO in a texas law firm .



what may be of concern is the company *when she was co had to pay 2 mill in damages /fines for fraud she of course denied knowing anything about it .

She represented at differant times in her carreer both disney and microsft so she has some experiance in corporate litigation .

In the late 80 she supported and gave money to the AL CORE for president campain.
She was voted one of the 100 most infuential lawyers by her peers long before she was selected by President Bush for the supreme court .

No real evidence of her views on abortion which seems to be the only thing democrats have a bug up there ass about .

She is a evangeligal christian *which may be of more concern * bu there is no reason to think her personal views would enter into her opinions as to what is constiitutional law .

baring a scandal concerning her which is highly unlikely she as almost always happens wil be confirmed as i sepreme court judge .

IMO she is a kinda mixed bag and like all judges there is no way to know what way she would vote should the legality of "row va wade" every come in from of the supreme court again.

She could be a rotten apple then John? :?:

Smacks of cronyism again to me. To make such a nomination suggests that someone called in a mighty big favour. I wonder what it was.........

I'm sure they'll peel away the truth

David Brooks the resident Right Wing columnist on the New York Times now thinks Bush could be the "Manchurian Candidate". shock shock shock

All this rightwing angst is just a smoke screen so the progressives don't challenge her. She's a bible thumping nut job and is no more fit to serve chips at MacDonalds than the SC.

Movie Stars and no marks in government, no wonder their country is a toilet.

Thank god I moved up north.