Skip to main content

View Diary: Picking their judge (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Just in case you miss the Sarcasm, this is it! (4.00)
    Don't you think that the Republicans should have filibustered Ginsburg and Beyer? -snark-

    For that matter, why didn't we Democrats fight tooth and nail to keep Eisenhower from putting that terrible Earl Warren on the Supreme Court - the man never served as any kind of judge before becoming Chief Justice (UNQUALIFIED?) and was one of the most partisan Republicans ever - hell, he even served as Governor of California when California was the reddest of red states! (PARTISAN) The only reason he got the job was because he was instrumental in getting Eisenhower the Republican nomination for president. (CRONYISMN) For that matter, We also should have dug in and kept William O. Douglas and Thurgood Marshall off too! Neither of them had any judicial experience. Just about the only thing that they had that hinted that they would be decent American justices was the fact that they were generally thought of as good persons.

    Look - we almost never know what a person will do after they get thrust into a position where they have to make momentous decisions. On the few times that we could predict, we were able to keep them off: e.g., Abe Fortes and that Bork dude. But when we don't have glaring indicia that a supreme court nominee will be making decisions clearly out of the center, it seems to me that taking the stance that we should oppose that nominee and filibuster is a bit extreme. We may not like the nominator, but we should at least look at the nominee before we react.

    I for one only know one thing for sure at this point. Meir is not a bad person as far as I know. She has made history in a profession then dominated by men, rising high enough to be nominated to the SOTUS despite not having gone to an Ivy League law school. Maybe something will come out to make me change my mind. But until it does, I think that she is an excellent nominee who represents a crack in W's persona. She at least deserves a fair hearing before we attack her.

    Give a man a fish, he dines today, teach him how to fish, he dines tomorrow, teach him how to sell fish and he eats steak! Anon.

    by Serendipity on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:44:32 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Once again with the short memories (none)
      Please stop treating this woman like she was Rosa Parks - or even Sandra Day O'Connor.  She graduated from law school in 1970, not 1950 - by the late 60's, there were LOTS of women in law schools, and in law firms by the 1970's.  As I said above, by the time I graduated from law school in 1986, the presence of women partners at senior levels in large law firms was NOT rare - they of course weren't in the numbers of male partners, and still aren't, but her career track was pretty normal, and she did not "make history" for God's sake.

      She's completely undistinguished.

      •  First Woman Partner (none)
        At Locke Purnell, but Dallas is not New York, Washington, or San Francisco.  I think the firm's first African American partner recently left for a corporate slot.  
        •  That's a bit snooty, don't you think? (none)
          If you had ever practiced in Dallas, you would realize that there are some very sharp legal minds here.  Miers was never one of them, of course.
          •  Not Meant That Way (none)
            Becoming the first female partner in Dallas IS more of an accomplishment.  I think that is just a statement about culture.  Washington, New York, and San Francisco (among other cities) were more receptive to women lawyers.  Having graduated from law school in 1979 (and making partner seven years later), I remember plenty of clients with whom I worked in Chicago and Washington calling me "sweetie."  

            One of the reasons I did not return home to rural Wisconsin is that I did not want to be the "first" woman all the time in the legal area there.  It would have made things a lot tougher.

            I've worked with people at her old firm and they are good, tough business lawyers.

    •  Warren had also been involved in the internment (none)
      of Japanese Americans only a few short years prior to his nomination. Supreme Court Justices are hard to judge in advance.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site