Skip to main content

View Diary: Picking their judge (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't filibuster, just slam her (none)
    There's no need to filibuster. But there's REALLY no need to congratulate the Prez on his choice, or to vote for her. If he wants her, make him pay for her. Who cares if she is less horrible, on ideological grounds, than other picks he might have made? There's no reason in the world to reward him for that. He's picked a weak candidate. Use it as an opportunity to kick him while he's down.

    If the Dems attack her inexperience and the President's chronic degenerative case of cronyism, it'll force the GOP to worry about possible conservative/responsible defectors. It'll cost them valuable time and political capital, and force them to defend an indefensible pick. In the unlikely event that she's rejected by the Senate, it'll be a huge embarrassment for the Prez and make him look even weaker than he does now.

    Meanwhile it'd help establish the Dems as the intelligent, grown-up, responsible party, and the GOP as the party of crony-coddling hacks. It's a huge winner. Why are we refraining from attacking her? As long as we don't go overboard with a filibuster (which would be overreaching), what could it possibly cost us to attack an unpopular and widely ridiculed candidate?

    "When I came to this town, my eyes were big blue stars. Now they're big green dollar signs." - Jean Arthur, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"

    by brooksfoe on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:12:39 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  A voice of reason! (none)
      And I've been posting does a nominee without judicial experience deserve to be on the SCOTUS?  IMHO, the answer is NO.  So, yes, she should be attacked on the basis of no judicial experience and no trail to scrutinize her decisions (what decisions?).  I am just not of the camp that we let her slide.  I don't believe she belongs on the SCOTUS, for the simple reason she has no record.

      We Need REGIME CHANGE  

      •  Precedent (none)
        There is plenty of precedent for effective--even stellar--Supreme Court justices with no prior judicial experience.

        [The Administration] has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water. ~Olberman

        by GOTV on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:01:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Judicial experience shouldn't be required (none)
        And I've been posting does a nominee without judicial experience deserve to be on the SCOTUS? IMHO, the answer is NO.

        As others have said, other justices have done alright without prior judicial experience. Rehnquist for example had no judicial experience before being nominated. Regardless of what you think of his positions, he seems to have been able to hold his own intellectually as a justice and in authoring opinions.

        I'm sure that apellate and supreme court litigators and legal scholars should also be able to be effective justices without judicial experience. Miers doesn't seem to have this background but why don't we see what she says in the hearings before rejecting her out of hand. Besides Miers would probably be preferable to Brown or Owens or someone like that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site