I'm a republican, I was for Bush in 2000, and against Kerry in 2004. I'm Pro-Life, and have mixed feelings about Roe. I've been okay with Bush's cronyism, at least until Micheal Brown came to light. Harriet Miers is worse. Not because she is less qualified than Brown, but because she is a permanent appointment.
Bush (I thought) raised the bar with Roberts and picking a true constitutional scholar. Miers is going to look like an idiot compared to Roberts, heck she's going to look like an idiot compared to any of the sitting justices. She also isn't the conservative that the far right wanted. Nor is she the intellectual the middle wanted. He pleased nobody except Harry Reid. But at least his friend will leave her mark.
To further upset the right...She's also not somebody who can be predicted. She was raised Catholic, became evangelical. She was a Dem through the 80's, became a republican. None are bad things, but they are signs that she may not be a reliable vote, and prone to U-turns.
I should add that the most important skill of a judge is how they write. Lawyers need to write briefs, which are important. Judges esp federal judges need to write precedent, exactly how far to take a decision. She has little or no experience of this. She might be good, Reinquest was good and wasn't a sitting judges, Souter is horrible and was a sitting judge...Yet its a good indicator of quality.
Here I thought Bush would pick a true constitutional scholar in the mold of Roberts. Maureen Mahoney would have been a good choice if he wanted a practicing attorney and a woman. There were good sitting justices on the right and the middle.
Well Bush's next big decision better not be a crony. That decision is much more important... Alan Greenspan's replacement.
Bush (I thought) raised the bar with Roberts and picking a true constitutional scholar. Miers is going to look like an idiot compared to Roberts, heck she's going to look like an idiot compared to any of the sitting justices. She also isn't the conservative that the far right wanted. Nor is she the intellectual the middle wanted. He pleased nobody except Harry Reid. But at least his friend will leave her mark.
To further upset the right...She's also not somebody who can be predicted. She was raised Catholic, became evangelical. She was a Dem through the 80's, became a republican. None are bad things, but they are signs that she may not be a reliable vote, and prone to U-turns.
I should add that the most important skill of a judge is how they write. Lawyers need to write briefs, which are important. Judges esp federal judges need to write precedent, exactly how far to take a decision. She has little or no experience of this. She might be good, Reinquest was good and wasn't a sitting judges, Souter is horrible and was a sitting judge...Yet its a good indicator of quality.
Here I thought Bush would pick a true constitutional scholar in the mold of Roberts. Maureen Mahoney would have been a good choice if he wanted a practicing attorney and a woman. There were good sitting justices on the right and the middle.
Well Bush's next big decision better not be a crony. That decision is much more important... Alan Greenspan's replacement.
Facebook
Twitter