Fat Steve's Blatherings

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Why Miers?  And What About Judicial Experience?

        The Washington Post has an article on the selection process.  This is the last paragraph:
        "He knows by his relationship with her that the Harriet Miers he knows today will be the Harriet Miers 20 years from now," said the senior official, meaning she would be no Souter.  "She knows his expectations.  She is the kind of person I strongly believe would never put herself in the position to be considered if she wouldn't meet those expectations."

        Meanwhile, Brian Williams blogs:
        Working on my own brief treatise for this evening on the Justices of the Supreme Court who were NOT judges first.  There have been 39 of them, including some of the towering figures in the law: Marshall, Brandeis, Frankfurter, Warren and Rehnquist, to name a few.  In a conversation with Michael Beschloss this afternoon we agreed that experience (or lack of it) has never been a marker for anything... in fact it's in keeping with the framers' design.

        Tonight we'll re-air a portion of an interview with the late Chief Justice Rehnquist featuring his thoughts on the subject of balance on the Court.  He notes that his court was heavily weighted toward judges (Justice O'Connor was the only one who's name had been on a ballot, just as Justice Thurgood Marshall was the only justice of his time to have represented defendants at murder trials) and away from those from academia or elective office.

        So chill people, until you at least have some substance to add to your complaints.



Post a Comment

<< Home