Ann is mellowing a bit on Miers. She explains why here.
I remain unmellow on the subject, but remain ready for evidence to suggest why mellowing ought to commence. (BTW, that comment should not be contrued as a repudiation of Althouse, just that I remain oppossed to the nomination).
Update: This post has made Hugh Hewitt happy. However, it didn’t do much for Stephen Bainbridge and Gordon Smith.
I wholly concur with Gordon’s assessment:
I have no problem making “grounding in reality” one of the considerations or selling points for a nominee, but in my view, Supreme Court justices should have something extra (and I don’t mean that they were the President’s personal lawyer). If Harriet Miers is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, so are thousands of attorneys and non-attorneys, whose main qualification is political connectedness. Obviously, political connections have always been extremely important to District- and Circuit-level appointments, and necessary-though-usually-not-sufficient for Supreme Court seats, but demanding something more of our Supreme Court justices is not asking too much.
.
Sphere: Related ContentFiled under: Courts/the Judiciary | |
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:14 am
I heard someone say, on this topic, “he chose the lady down the hall, maybe if I take a tour of the whitehouse I can get appointed for something” I think that sums it up, there are more qualified people for the job., to say the least.
October 12th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Yes, there are more qualified candidates, but it is not evident that there are “better” qualified or suited candidates.
And yes, demanding some unspecified “something more” is likely “asking too much.”
R/