What will President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers mean for the Supreme Court?
White House counsel Harriet Miers has been nominated to take the place of Sandra Day O'Connor.
The appointment needs to be approved by the Senate where it is likely the Democrats will fight the nomination.
Ms Miers has never served as a judge but has been President Bush's top legal counsel since November 2004.
Will Harriet Miers make a good Supreme Court judge? Who would you prefer to see being nominated?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
The follow comments reflect the balance of opinion received so far:
 |
How long can it be before abortion becomes illegal in the US? The cruel irony is that the person who could tip the balance on this is female
|
Bush said he selected somebody who will carry through his beliefs not just in the short term, but for many years to come. How long can it be before abortion becomes illegal in the US? The cruel irony is that the person who could tip the balance on this is female. A sad day for the women of America, and a sad day for the world as the US lurches even further to the right.
Phil, Newcastle, UK
I believe Ms. Miers will make a good SC judge. However, I would have preferred one of the nominees for the appellate courts that were blocked by Democrats. Someone like Priscilla Owens or Janet Rogers Brown. Still, I think she will be confirmed and will eliminate the swing vote that O'Conner sometimes cast. I think she will help keep the court on purpose. Our Supreme Court's main purpose is to review lower court decisions to make sure our Constitution is being adhered to. I like President Bush's criteria for justices: That they keep to their purpose and not "legislate from the bench", like liberals want.
Stephan Wright, Cumming, GA (USA)
Hey Paul Girling of Toronto, Canada; please keep your broad statements about Americans to yourself!
sarc, New York
Bush doesn't like to explain himself but an explanation as to why he thinks Miers should fill this spot seems like a rational expectation. So far, his defence of this nomination seems to boil down to "trust me". This is a far from adequate endorsement of a seemingly unqualified candidate. The Senate should not give Miers serious consideration if her own backers refuse to seriously state a case for appointing her to this crucial post.
Jim, NJ, USA
Any nominee, such as Ms. Miers, who worked for Melvin Belli, so-called "king of torts", will never be confirmed by this Senate, for the Supreme Court. The right wing was 'fire and brimstone' on the Court, not West Coast culture.
Jim Hopewell, Maryland USA
Judge Judy (TV show) would have been a better choice....
Jeff K, USA
It seems crazy to me that George Bush has the nerve to nominate a person who has never been a judge of any kind, and she is his personal counsel. How can we believe this person could be a credible candidate for the Supreme Court?
Michael Garlinger, San Francisco, USA
I think it's regrettable that a previous poster referred to the dissenting voices regarding Ms. Miers as "anti-Bush bashers". I don't form my principles or make my judgements based on a personal like or dislike of the President, but rather, his conduct and actions. This is a questionable action and even if done with the best of intentions, it raises many questions about Bush's intentions as well as Ms. Miers. It seems evident that Bush is hoping that the high court will make a run at overturning Roe vs Wade before the end of his second term. Ms. Miers may be the perfect candidate to enable this to happen. She will be Bush's Trojan horse, since the public might be led to believe there is no way that a female jurist would spearhead an effort to criminalize abortion.
Patrick, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Harriet Miers is just another scrap of sandpaper added for the sole purpose of flinging the court so far to the right that it could take decades to find any shred of liberty or democracy remaining.
Adam Gillick, United States
Harriet Miers has a distinguished career and has demonstrated time and time again her commitment to fairness and helping those less fortunate. Given her seemingless role model character I think she will make a fine selection. Her lack of experience of being a judge is not unique nor is it important. I am confident that she will serve the court well and become a legacy over time. Good Choice George!
Malcolm, Houston TX (ex pat from Windsor)
Just a few facts for those who think Ms Mier lack of judicial experience will be an issue, please read this. "According to the White House, 10 of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933 were appointed from positions within the president's administration. And 20 Supreme Court justices previously had never served as judges before getting on the high court.
Henry, Canada
Question: what judicial experience prior to joining US Supreme Court had Chief Justices Warren and Renquist had? Answer: NONE!
Merlin, Santa Fe, N.M., USA
"Unfortunately, Ms Meirs attended an unknown law school, save to those in that regional area, and the major highlights of her legal career has been dependant on her relationship with the president"- claims Beth, Florida, USA Excuse me, but such a comment could come only from a snobbish Ivy League graduate. And on top of that Harriet Miers has been a very successful lawyer in a well known and prestigious firm. Would you care to check her success rate as a litigator?
Mirek Kondracki, American in Poland
Roberts was undoubtedly highly qualified, no matter what your politics. Harriet Myers is not. End of story.
Jonathan Michaud, Baltimore, MD, USA
Another Bush insider/crony to carry out more scams against the American people and the world. She has no experience as a judge. That alone should disqualify her.
Chris, Tampa FL USA
To the victor goes the spoils, such is the American system. The president gets to pick whomever he wants and that person will be appointed if the Senate agrees. I do not know this candidate at all so won't opinionize on her, but there is one point I don't like about the process. The same people who are 'anti-right wing extremists' when it comes to this position would seem to be to be 'pro-left wing extremists'. All I heard in the last so many years is criticism of 'right wingers', where is the criticism of the 'left wingers' such as justice Ginsburg who has openly voiced support for lowering the age of consent to 12 (!!!). I don't like extremists whatever side they are from, not just those from the other side of the spectrum.
Marcel de Vries, The Hague, the Netherlands
Well what did you expect? The only thing Bush has succeeded in doing is scaring people to vote for him. Makes me so glad i left the States.
PK, Maryland, USA (ex now)
Bush has now extended "jobs for the boys" to include "jobs for the girls."
John Mycroft, Asheville USA
The fact that hyper-conservatives are very disappointed about this nomination is a good sign. Of course she is a conservative, but she doesn't seem like a nut. She has, in fact, shown support for equal rights for gays and great compassion for the poor. She may be "pro-life" but I don't think she is a fanatic about it and could base her decisions on the Constitution instead of ideology. Really, it could have been much, much worse.
Shawn, Washington, DC, USA I find it terrifying that after the breezy approval of John Roberts, a man who did all but plead the fifth amendment while being questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Harriet Miers is being challenged with great rigor because she is not enough of a right wing extremist.
Christian Leopold Shea, Hollywood, California, USA
We don't know, is the truthful answer but you could have asked that of every nominee. Is she any less qualified than those on the bench now? I doubt it. But who would put themselves forward as a candidate and be subject to the irrelevant, demeaning interrogation by the self-serving politicians in the Senate? No job is worth that treatment.
Keith, US/UK
Ms Miers could very well do a great job as Supreme Court Judge but politics are going to sink her. All Supreme Court nominations are "political" by nature and that is why the Senate must confirm each nomination. The President should nominate centrist candidates and avoid even the appearance of unpopular politics. I think President Bush has gone too far this time, and the gathering storm resembles Katrina.
Michael, Calif, USA
|
Surely he had many candidates who were more qualified for this nomination that her
|
I have misgivings about Ms Miers being nominated. I am glad that he picked a woman, but surely he had many candidates who were more qualified for this nomination that her. It remains to be seen how this will play out for either side. I don't believe President Bush when he says that he doesn't know where she stands on abortion and a host of other issues. He said, "Trust me, I know her heart". Who says such things? The days of trusting President Bush on his word alone, have long since passed.
Diane, Aurora, CO, USA
Many Americans on this site have commented that this issue is none of anybody else's business yet we have stuck our noses in where it is not wanted all over the world. We attack countries whose own neighbours who are at higher risk than our own do not want to attack. Decisions made here rain down upon the world and crush people and yet we tell them that a Supreme Court nomination is none of their business? All men are created equal as long as you're born in the US and a Republican.
Ridge, Northern California, USA
Right now the president should concentrate on domestic issues like jobs and the economy. Right now, all I care about is the issues here at home instead of overseas. It's time to put the American people first, the president was elected by Americans so Mr president let's start taking care of the people here at home.
Jeff, USA
Bush's appointment of the director of FEMA, now resigned, gives no confidence that another of his close acquaintances will be any better on the Supreme Court. It is time to appoint by ability and experience.
MieJung Park, David York, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Bush stacks the Supreme Court with no thought for the judicial process. Roosevelt and Truman must be turning in their graves to see the calibre of President America has. Let us hope Harriet Miers is of superior calibre to her President.
P O'Donnell, Auckland, NZ
Bad for women in the US that's for sure. Bad for the LGBT community. Bad for the poverty stricken and the elderly to. And US business is our business. As the US dominates the world and dictates to everyone else US politics is of vital importance to the safety of the world. Unfortunately, it's all been negative since Bush came to power. And this nomination is no different.
Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, UK
As the question asked says "what do you think". I liked Robert's qualifications and after Miers nomination I realized that I was unfairly comparing her to Roberts. I will reserve my opinion until I hear from her. That's the least any of us can do.
Penny, USA
Various media have reported Ms Miers to work extraordinarily long hours at the White House, such as from 5 a.m. to after 10 at night. If true, her work ethic is certainly to be admired, but it leaves to question just whether this mature-aged woman can bring the same energy and spirit to the High Court. At a minimum, she and Mr. Roberts should make an interesting mix.
Miranda, Miami, FL
Ms Miers strikes me as a rubber stamp for George Bush. On any issue before the Court, Bush will be in her head and over her shoulder. I don't believe that she can be an independent thinker,
Patricia Moynihan, Denver, USA
To Conor of Ireland: Our Constitution is not amended by the US Supreme Court.
Caroline, New Jersey
Unlike some people in Washington, I reserve my opinion until I hear from her. People in the Senate take note. As for people posting on this site outside the US. Your comments mean nothing to us. This is our business and not yours.
Barbara, New York, USA
Ms Barbara, New York, USA does not realise that there are Americans who live outside the US. and they are entitled to comments too.
Anne, USA
To Barbara in New York. If you don't care about the opinion of anyone who is not from the States, why are you posting on a British Website? American hypocrisy at its best.
Paul Girling, Toronto, Canada
To early to pass a judgment on Miers. But, it is such an irony that the world's oldest democratic countries judges are appointed and conformed by politicians
Antin Vinay, Dallas, Texas
As a conservative supporter of Bush, who has twice voted for him, I am deeply disappointed by the selection of Ms. Miers. Unlike John Roberts, she is obviously not the most qualified person for the job. If Mr. Bush thinks this pick will improve his flagging poll numbers, he is mistaken. I predict a large loss of support among his conservative base, including me.
Brian Smith, Jackson, MS USA
Maybe she could send me the winning lottery numbers during her first week in office.
Tony, USA
When I read comments from supporters of Bush or his nomination appealing to our sense of 'balance' and asking readers to give Ms Miers 'a chance', I wonder what this transparent appointment of an inappropriately-qualified political aide is balanced against, and how much of a 'chance' is an appointment for life.
Malcolm, Hereford, UK
Look, just because she hasn't been a judge that doesn't make her a bad candidate. She is a lawyer so she knows her way around a courtroom.
Russ, Los Angeles, CA, USA
The fact that she has never been a judge is nothing new. In fact a majority of supreme court justices have never been on the bench. Her legal education and experience should speak for itself.
Rick, Fergus Falls, Minnesota US
Why would a pretender President consider judicial experience for the highest court in the land? It's just about the money, baby.
Bill, Wisconsin, USA
This is a very interesting nomination. She will be questioned hard from both sides of the senate's political spectrum, and I wouldn't be surprised if she gets opposed by some on both right and left.
Mark Bell, Oxford, UK
Miers is a compromise choice. Bush's approval ratings are so low that he was no real position to nominate a controversial candidate such as Alberto Gonzales to the court. The fact that leading Democrats were asked their opinion further highlights the precarious political situation Bush finds himself in. It is the only time in recent memory where members of the opposition party have been consulted with regards to a nomination to the supreme court.
Mark, Belfast, NI
I think Harriett Miers will make an excellent judge. She is extremely hard working and extraordinary woman who has a lifetime of as a lawyer. Besides her own success, she has done a great deal of pro-bono work. I think that Pres. Bush has nominated another very qualified and dignified person to the Supreme Court.
Madeleine Dunn, New York, NY
I think she'll bring a very fresh perspective to the high court. Having not been a judge before, she is not stuck in a box and may very well bring a unique and exciting energy to the Supreme Court.
Deborah Beebe, Monrovia, CA, USA
The last Supreme Court nominee, now Chief Justice John Roberts, was a judge before being nominated. A couple of weeks ago I heard a pundit on the radio criticizing him because he had never been a trial attorney: Roberts has never cross-examined a witness, never taken a deposition. Now Harriet Miers, who has been a trial attorney, is being criticized because she was never a judge. You can't win for losing.
Barry, Altadena, California, USA
Nothing that George W. Bush has done quite defines him in the same way his selections for various positions he gets to fill does. He is uncomfortable with anyone who is not a crony. His appointments need not have experience relevant, or attributes suitable, for the position they will fill. We have seen this with Rumsfeld, with Cheney, with Bolton, with Brown, with Rice, with Chertkoff, it goes on and on. America is not being led well and it is not being led by a competent President or Administration. America is broken and it will be a very long time, if ever, that it is fixed.
Richard D, Mississauga, Canada
Considering how this President is famous for rewarding corruption and abject failure in previous jobs I for one am shocked he didn't nominate former FEMA head Mike Brown, Congressman Tom DeLay or his aide Karl Rove!
Randal, Los Angeles CA, USA
Impressive CV, hopefully it was not beefed up as the removed FEMA chief's was! I am for elections in the judicial system rather than political appointments.
Rezwan Rashid, Dallas, USA
It seems that some are making judgements without any understanding of the Supreme Court or this nominee. Ten out of the last 34 justices didn't serve on a judicial bench prior to the time they were appointed to the Supreme Court. Miers is also not a legal lightweight. She is the first woman to serve as the president of the Texas State Bar. I myself would have loved to have seen Bush pick a Con-law professor from a university. Somebody who studies the history of the document and the people who wrote it. As for Miers, it is simply far too early to start making judgements about abilities.
David, Austin, TX. USA
Mr Bush has a knack for surrounding himself with the best people and if Harriet Miers was on his staff, she must be a strong person. The fact that she has never served as a judge is surely a plus for her, as she has no past to defend.
Dwayne Chastain, West Jefferson, Ohio
Another post, another crony. What constitutional crisis will the lacklustre lady be responsible for?
Alexander Newman, New York, USA
I think it's sad that we even have to discuss the candidate's politics; I don't care whether a Supreme Court justice votes conservative or liberal, so long as they interpret the constitution as fairly as they feel they can. This is why I supported John Roberts. That said, I oppose Miers on the basis that she is one of George Bush's closest friends and colleagues, making hers a painfully political and selfish nomination.
Dan McLennon, Storrs, CT, US
Despite being a long-time registered Republican, I view this appointment as an outrageous insult to the American people, the legal and judicial communities, and the Supreme Court itself. A combination of real-world experience (which she does have), a substantial body of highly respected legal scholarship, and judicial experience that has elicited broad respect (neither of which she has), should be the basis of all nominations to the highest court in the land. Nobody should accept anything less.
Barry, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
The less time as a judge, the better. I guess it doesn't matter her piers selected her to chair their organizations down the line, that she is brilliant, etc, etc. Let the Dems squirm - and the next two who are likely to step down are the top two liberals on the court, Ginsberg and Stevens. Finally, we'll have a court that will interpret the Constitution rather than legislate from the bench. Brilliant choice. By the way, I would not be qualified to comment on court appointees in Europe - I wonder why some there think they know what they are talking about?!?
Dennis Kelly, New Carlisle, OH, USA
Better a candidate with no judicial experience than an ultra-conservative!
Regina, Plymouth, MA, USA
I never imagined things could get worse after Katrina. Bush has stripped away any remaining integrity he once held with Miers as his "best" SC candidate. He ought to ashamed of himself more than anything.
Meaghan, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
First we get a Supreme Court judge who could barely come up with a straight forward answer as to what he believes. Next on the list, someone described by a former law partner to be "...defined by hard work, dedication and client loyalty,." This statement actually worries me when you consider that Bush has been a 'client' of hers for almost 20 years now.
Kelly, IL, US
The problem is not who is chosen by Bush. We all know what to expect from him. The problem is Democrats approving any of Bush's choices, even after having exposed them at the hearings. Pathetic.
Enrique Gonzalez, Atlanta, GA
John Roberts was quite over-qualified while this nominee seems rather under-qualified. My initial impression of Roberts was neutral. After his confirmation hearing it was apparent that he possessed a superior intellect and mastery of the legal system. My initial opinion of Miers is quite negative, so I look forward to the hearings.
Matt, USA
There is a sad cynical part of me that wonders if he's choosing a woman who is known for being selfless and dedicated in her position as a lawyer in hopes that if she gets shot down he can replace her with someone that would be a worse choice and bully it through with comments about timeliness and the importance of maintaining the Court.
Patti, Boston, MA, USA
As it is increasingly common for American judges to try to judicially enact sweeping legislation, a power that is not afforded to them in our structure of government and that is discordant with the basic principles of democracy, I am heartened that Bush's nominees appear to be committed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I sincerely hope Ms Miers receives the opportunity to prove that she is fair-minded and respectful of our nation's legal institutions.
Charles, Nashville, USA
|
The major highlights of her legal career has been dependant on her relationship with the president
|
As a current law student I have been discussing this surprising nomination with fellow classmates and many of us have severe reservations over this nomination. Not only does this seem like a poorly devised scheme to put another W crony in a position of power (look how well the FEMA one worked out). But, even the conservatives I know have been severely questioning this nomination. I realize that many other justices, such as Chief Justice Rehnquist never served as a judge prior to their nomination however, they all had reputable credentials that were not immersed in their politic association with the president that nominated them. Additionally, these other justices went to superior law schools and truly earned their nomination. Unfortunately, Ms Meirs attended an unknown law school, save to those in that regional area, and the major highlights of her legal career has been dependant on her relationship with the president. Her nomination is by far inferior to those justices who served and were nominated without judicial experience. If all the president can offer in defence of his nomination is to "trust him" than I fear for our judicial system because that defence is just not good enough.
Beth, Florida, USA
Interesting that people keep mentioning how Bush's base will be angry with him, as he did not appoint a conservative. They are forgetting one important point - he has already been voted in for a second term, he no longer needs his base!
Kari, California, US
Most of the present court are academics from the northeast, not practicing lawyers. The court needs more balance and Miers is a good start. Anyone who feels Justice John Roberts was not the best of the best needs some education. The man pleaded more than thirty cases before this court, more than any other person.
Sharon S, Pennsylvania, USA
Based on Bush's track record, I can't imagine him being able to nominate anyone who would make a good Supreme Court Justice (including Mr. Roberts). That's really too bad - both his nominations may actually be superb, but at this point I don't have faith in him doing anything right. And nominating someone from his inner circle - people who have spent the last five years figuring out creative ways to lie to the world - makes alarms go off in my head.
Tim Casey, Boston USA
A curious pick and not the one I was hoping he'd make. I will, however, reserve judgement until the confirmation hearings though. Bush may be many things but contrary to world opinion, he's a lot shrewder than many give him credit for. Lets wait and see.
Dominick, Virginia, USA
It's interesting that so many people ignore the fact that 35 of the 110 justices were not judges. It's also clear that many are quick to dismiss her because she was chosen by Bush, and must therefore be suspect. And more telling that people are wanting to know her stance on two, and only two issues, when a Supreme Court Justice must weigh in, objectively, on ANY case put before them, ostensibly on the merits of the case. Can we at least wait to hear something about her before condemning her out of hand?
Todd, Missouri, USA
Cronyism and new blood aside, I just can not fathom how someone with no judicial experience whatsoever (not even traffic court) could be the best qualified person in the country for a vacancy on the Supreme Court. If there are other criteria on which she must be judged, Bush should articulate them clearly and convincingly.
Ryan T. Mahon, Washington, DC
From what I have read so far, if dedication, hard work, character and integrity are all that matter then Harriet Miers sounds like a very good choice. How she will do as a Supreme Court Justice is another matter. There is no record of judging cases to go by. I will defer my final opinion until after the confirmation hearings and the media analysis. I know she is a conservative, but "how conservative" is the real question (and the real concern).
John, NJ, USA
|
Bush will go down in history as being the president who made the worst postings
|
Bush will go down in history as being the president who made the worst postings. This is just another example of putting someone woefully inadequate for the job into the spotlight. It doesn't really matter if Rehnquist sat on a bench or not. I wouldn't consider a non-judge on the Supreme Court myself. Also, she's another conservative. This is the Supreme Court! They're supposed to interpret the Constitution. To be fair, there should be three conservatives, three liberals and three middle-of-the-roaders so all points of view can be taken into consideration during the interpretation process. Miers may be a very good lawyer, but looking at the situation from a wider scale, she's a bad choice.
Windy, USA
'Cronyism' aside, this woman has donated campaign money to Democrats/Liberals. This tells me she does not share the same ideology as her boss, yet President Bush respects her accomplishments, character and drive.
Anon, USA
Many have compared Miers to Rehnquist or Abe Fortas, neither of whom had been judges. This comparison is not apt. Rehnquist was a law clerk before the Supreme Court, an ivy leaguer and had argued cases before the SC. Fortas was a Yale law professor. Miers has none of these credentials.
Lynn, Raleigh, NC, USA
It is more than likely that Miers will be confirmed by the US Senate notwithstanding unhappiness from sections of the American right that she is not 'conservative' enough. And I predict that she would politically and therefore judicially to the 'right' of Sandra Day O'Connor once she is on the court. Bush picked her solely for loyalty whereas Ronald Reagan's appointment of O'Connor in 1981 was not - in appearance and in reality - a 'reward' or payback whereas the Miers nomination certainly is.
Myint Zan, Sarawak, Malaysia
Am I naive to think that all judges on the US Supreme Court should be swing judges? Meaning, every judge should approach every case with an unwavering open mindedness to the ultimate outcome. And correct me if I'm wrong but aren't having 4 left-wing votes, 4 right-wing votes, and one swing vote the exact same as having one swing vote?
Darrow, Tallahassee, FL, USA
I think Ms Miers could be a good choice. She doesn't have much experience, so that will allow her to start afresh and form her opinions and beliefs without any past taint. She seems to be a good choice for the position.
James Liska, Glastonbury, Connecticut, USA
As a true conservative, I'm absolutely disgusted with President Bush. He has nominated a complete unknown when plenty of qualified conservative candidates exist. He has betrayed everyone who had voted for him.
Pete Wagner, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
It doesn't bother me that Ms Miers has never served as a judge but what does bother me is that Bush is constantly saying that once you get to know here like I know her you'll like her. That forces the American People to trust the president, and I find trusting him to be very difficult.
Sarah Wright, Woodland California, USA
This further tarnishes our reputation internationally. I think this nomination speaks volumes about the separation between our President and the needs of the country.
Shannon, New York City, USA
A lot has been made of the fact that Renquist was not a judge before his confirmation. Renquist made a great deal of States Rights until it looked like Florida would recount all the votes in the 2000 election. At which time he became an "activist" judge and determined that the Supreme Court would select the President. If the States Rights Republicans had been aware of Renquist's judicial activism he would never have been confirmed to the Supreme Court. Beware of what you wish for. Trust but verify.
John, N Arlington, USA
I'm glad she doesn't have any judicial experience. The majority of our members of Congress have a lot of experience but they can't seem to get anything right.
Evan, Lakeland, Florida, USA One would think that the Brown/FEMA fiasco would have taught Bush something about the dangers of cronyism. Like Brown, Ms Miers lacks the professional qualifications for the job Bush would like to give her. The Senate should reject her on these grounds.
Kit, USA
I wonder how many of those complaining about Miers never having been a judge realize that the previous Chief Justice, Rehnquist, also was never a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court? Many other justices, such as White, were not judges as well. The knee-jerk reactions here are telling.
Jeremy, Regina, Canada
Like most lawyers, Miers' experience is in legal advocacy. With no judicial experience, she will likely be very similar to Rehnquist, a highly partisan and ideological justice, and very much an advocate for Republican causes. She will be quite different from O'Connor who, despite the latter's very conservative views, had enough judicial experience and temperament to wield her authority in a wise and measured way.
Melissa, Evanston, USA
I am astonished. Bush's right wing faithful are going to be very unhappy. Harriet is another Sandra Day O'Connor. The people who put Bush into office are going to revolt.
Mike Corcoran, Minneapolis, Minnesota I watched Bush nominate Roberts and it was strong, decisive and brief. This morning I watched Bush's hard sell on Harriet Miers and I couldn't help but wonder who he was trying to convince that this was a good choice - maybe himself?
Paulette Clark, Simsbury, CT USA
Miers has no previous experience as a judge and yet she is nominated for the nation's highest court to serve as judge. Bush is from Texas and so is Miers. That is the only qualification she has. If Democrats oppose her nomination, their course of action will be well justified among the American public.
Rambabu Nagoor, Chicago, IL, USA
William Rehnquist had not been a judge before being appointed. Apparently some Democrats suggested her.
Laura, Phoenix, USA
Isn't it ironic that an administration which pretends to care about women's equality in the Muslim world is so determined to turn the clock back for American women? They appoint a politicized, inexperienced female crony to the Supreme Court so that she can ensure that US women will no longer have access to reproductive and subsequent social and economic freedom. Bush seems determined to turn the U.S. into a 10% rich / 90% poor Third World nation. And guess who is part of that 10%?
Betty, Reston, VA
Having some judiciary background is imperative. It's another Bush crony getting a favour from W. What are her standings on abortion? How about her position on racial issues? Does she even have a background to be checked re these issues?
Randy Vincent, St Petersburg & USA
I'm happy that Mr Bush chose not too nominate a polarising figure to the court. I was worried that he would nominate a hardline conservative. That being said, I have doubts about her experience. Even my conservative friends are scratching their heads at Ms. Miers' nomination.
Andrew, Lexington, KY, USA
Harriet Miers appears to be an accomplished lawyer with impressive qualifications, but she has never been a judge. This concerns me a great deal. Did President Bush pick her because she does not have much of a judicial paper trail for the Senate to examine?
Jacqui Dixon, Granby, Connecticut USA
|
Ms Miers is extremely qualified
|
Previous judicial experience is not necessary. There have been many Supreme Court Justices through the years that had no previous judicial experience, including the late Justice Rehnquist. I think that Ms Miers is extremely qualified and will do an outstanding job.
Chris, Rockledge FL, USA
Bush is in a difficult spot here. He has cleverly picked someone with no clear judicial record to ignite a partisan debate, thereby making it tough for conservatives to claim he reneged on his promise to nominate a staunch conservative, and equally difficult for liberals to portray her as too conservative on key issues. The problem is it is hard to imagine that Harriet Miers would make the list if you were to rate the 50 greatest legal minds in the country today.
Mike Mutka, Apex, NC
Everyone should know that 35 previous SC justices had no actual judicial experience before being named to the highest court in the land. Though it will be made to sound unbelievable by those that fight this nomination, it is nearly routine. The Dems have pressured the president for a mainstream female, and that is what they have received. I can't wait to see whether we will have a lot of argument anyway.
Jacob, Kentucky, US
Please note that one of America's most successful chief justices, William Rehnquist himself, had no experience before Reagan nominated him.
Erik Risendal, Midlothian, VA, USA Any Supreme Court justice who would be this close to the current administration has to make me concerned for the legitimacy of preserving the separation of powers. Ms Miers is a poor choice for that reason alone, no matter how strong her credentials might be as a woman of the law.
Tim, Philadelphia, USA
A lot will be said about the fact that Ms Miers has no previous experience as a judge. Nothing was said about Chief Justice Earl Warren or the roughly one third of previous Supreme Court justices of which this was also the case. Several years ago Rose Byrd was chosen as the chief justice of the California Supreme Court and she had no previous experience. The Democrats loved her.
Bill Carter, Los Angeles, California
Bush has made a lot of stupid decisions but both his Supreme Court appointments seem to be excellent choices at first glance.
Arjun Arunachalam, USA
|
Why can't we at least pretend to be fair and give her a chance?
|
It is amazing that people are already upset with this woman. It seems that anyone nominated by Bush is suspect in some circles simply because Bush nominated them. Give the lady a chance. During the next few weeks the press will dig deeper into this woman's past and present life than anyone should have to endure. Then we will see who she is, what she has said and what she has done. Then it will be time to make a judgment, and I am sure the anti-Bush bigots will still dislike her. But why can't we at least pretend to be fair and give her a chance?
Terry, St Louis, USSo what if she doesn't have judicial experience? The Supreme Court must strike a balance between the seasoned judges and practitioners who slug it out in the trenches. Rehnquist was such a slugger, and an outstanding one for that matter. America needs a Miers on the Court to add some real trench experience, instead of just adding another lawyer's review editor to the bench.
Paolo Boado, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
I think she would do a good job as she is very competent, but because of her lack of judicial experience her nomination may not survive the screening process. Although it smacks of cronyism, would the high and mighty Democrats do anything different? No.
Patrick, Philadelphia, PA USA
It is surprising that someone who has never been a judge is being made a Supreme Court judge. How can a child start walking without crawling first? The fact that she has been a legal counsel is not enough for her to become a Supreme Court judge. This is a reckless appointment.
Omorodion Osula, Boston, USA
A surprisingly clever Machiavellian move by Mr Bush. No judicial record means no ammunition for Senate Democrats. I'd like to see a learned nominee with actual experience in the mould of John Roberts on the bench rather than some shadowy Bush crony.
Andrew Simpson, Glendale, AZ, US It is a shame that a talented lawyer who just happens to be a woman is being elevated because her gender makes her marketable. A female candidate is obviously easier for the US government to 'sell', while still shifting the balance of the court towards conservatism. It is cynical and sad.
Stephen, Cambridge, UK
Change is in the air; and change is not always good. Another disastrous Bush appointee. Will she even know how to render and write an opinion? This is just another example of Bush 'spending political capital' that he 'earned' in the last election. The US will continue to retrogress even further than they have to date under 'W's watch.
Dan, Quebec, Canada
Bush seems to be appeasing Democrats by nominating a woman, but as she is in Bush's inner circle she is undoubtedly a conservative which would make the Supreme Court a virtually complete conservative body which would be disastrous for any future constitutional amendments. I think it's a bad idea, and hopefully the Democrats will succeed in overturning her appointment.
Conor Buggy, Dublin, Ireland
Her law career sounds very impressive, but I am wary of the fact that she has never served as a judge. However, I really think it is too early to say for sure until we hear more details.
Jenna, Harrisburg, IL, USA
While Ms Miers seems to have an accomplished background, I am concerned that she is from the President's inner circle and has not been an actual judge. In my opinion, before one should be considered a position as one of the top judges for the nation, that person should have actually been a judge.
Micahel Paquette, Trumbull, CT, USA
It is curious that in the United States, becoming a supreme court judge does not require... any experience of actually being a judge.
Colin, Cambridge, UK
Appointing someone who has no experience as a judge and who is a senior aid to the existing government can only be a political move to make the Supreme Court a pawn of the president.
James, Cambridge, UK
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~47~RS~)
One-Minute World News
News services
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
