And the next Supreme Court nominee is.....

[siberianxkiss]

Harriet Miers

a lawyer who's never been a judge. but at least she's a woman!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171050,00.html

[splitsecond]

I think its good to have people who havent been lifetime judges. It adds a different perspective on things.

[Justin_stacy]

I don't really care that she hasn't been judge before, since her profession is still within the law realm, and the fact is current history shows that there are many judges on the bench who have no business being judges. It also matters little that she's a woman either, as quality and ability should always trump sex or race........

The one problem I do have is that she, from first perceptions, seem to be a little to much in the middle ground for me. I think Bush owed it to the majority of conservative Americans who elected him to put an actual conservative on the bench, one to counter Clinton's nominees, Ginsburg and Breyers.

[siberianxkiss]

i know it sex/race matters little, but its nice to see a some diversity

i dont care that shehasnt had any judicial experience before being nominated, but of course that will be an issue. and i havent heard much of her background yet, but you know she's gonna get torn apart for being bush's personal lawyer.

also given the current political climate and bush's ratings, do you think it would have been smart for him to nominate a conservative like thomas or scalia?

[Paul Tao]

Oh this is interesting. This might piss off a few conservatives.

From Redstate.org:
"Me, the sources, everyone it seems was wrong. We've all heard the rumors, but not a one could believe the President would do that. Where is our Scalia/Thomas.

I think I'll let the President fight this battle himself, for now.

It appears, for what it is worth, that George W. Bush was the ultimate stealth nominee. He has acted like a true-blue conservative, talking the talk and walking the tax cut walk. But, he has expanded government, spent the future, and now nominated she who has the potential to be a female Souter.

Let's hope I'm wrong, but right now I'm not impressed."

Yowza.

[GhostsDaddy]

Hmm... I suppose I'm about as happy with this as anyone else Bush would have feasibly nominated.

[dangets]

Supporters call Miers a great lawyer who understands the limited role they think judges should play in society and the importance of strictly adhering to the Constitution.

yes, the role judges should play in society is limited... just like the roles of the other two branches should be. equally limited, just like the Constitution says.

so, let's hope they don't like her because she's going to give carte blanche to the President and Congress. that would be just as bad as a legislative judiciary.

[Kid Kilowatt]

With all the talk of cronyism, you'd think Bush would have gone with another nominee.

[VinnyVegas]

The Spoils System is still alive and well.

[youcomebeforeyo]

I was watching the coverage on her nomination on BBC World last night.

The reporter made interesting points, everyone knows she's right wing but no-one knows just how right wing. We will see a lot of questions in the Senate hearings I expect.

She does have quite a distinguished career though. Public school educated, her dad died so she went to work to pay for her education. Worked with a huge range of charities.

From the charities I picked up quite a few Christian names and she graduated from a Methodist university. I'm presumming she probably is pro-life but not sure.

[Justin_stacy]

i know it sex/race matters little, but its nice to see a some diversity

I'll agree with that, and i think its a fitting honor to O'Conner to nominate a womyn, as O'Conner wanted, to fill her set............but i still contend that race or sex shouldn't be a strong point of contention....

[Justin_stacy]

also given the current political climate and bush's ratings, do you think it would have been smart for him to nominate a conservative like thomas or scalia?
It wouldn't have mattered, Republicans still control the congress, and Bush still has the support of his base which helped elect him. One moderate nominee is ok, but not two.......and we've seen the type of people democrats nominate, and that must be countered, liberal opinion, in essence of Ginsburg and Breyers, is not the mainstream of American thought and it shouldn’t be in control of the supreme court.

I also think you've put too much into the poll numbers, disapproval of current actions doesn't signal a turn in opinion or support for the opposing party.....