The link to my post on this topic is attached to this comment.

I note that many qualifications I have heard mentioned would reject several of the justices among most people’s top ten all time list.

My own qualifications would include above average intellect, rock solid personal integrity (including intellectual integrity), a knowledge of how the justice system works, and the ability to quickly learn (no lawyer is knowledgeable about all the areas the Supreme Court must rule on, ranging from admiralty law to patent law), and patience.

The requirement of intellectual integrity is a major one that I think constrains ideology.

How does Miers fit on these non-exhaustive criteria? I don’t know yet.

Women’s reproductive rights are certainly more important than any formula for the election of justices, but I’m not sure how this affects my argument about the later. Are you claiming that the president could not find a high achiever who would uphold abortion rights?

So? Personally, I’d prefer to see the right to abortion upheld, however mediocre the judges upholding it, than overturned, no matter how brilliant the judges overturning. How about you?

“Even if he is mediocre there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there.”

Not yet that desperate?

Now, I do agree that one should expect much from a Bush crony, but let’s be clear here: one don’t expect no freakin justice whatsoever from a successful super-smart freakin harvard/yale lawyer either. Certainly no more than from the Pets.Com dog. Know why? Gigantic ego causing all kinds of weirdness. Just look at that Alan Dershowitz guy.

How depressing…one might as well be a democrat.

Bush Nominates Horse to Supreme Court

President Bush caught the pundits by surprise yesterday in nominating his horse Harriet Neighers to the Supreme Court. Many Democrats who had been concerned that Bush’s next nominee would have extreme ideas were impressed with how deftly Bush neutralized the “idea” problem. “From all we can tell by the paper trail, her main concerns have been accumulating hay and flicking off flies. Who could argue with that?” said Senator Harry Reid, slyly suggesting that he had been consulted on the nomination. Senator Dianne Feinstein reported that she had once asked the horse at a cocktail party whether she approved of Roe – one tap for yes, two taps for no. The horse tapped once, lost its balance, and fell over. “I suppose we were all drinking a bit at that party”, said Feinstein, “but, still, one tap is one tap”.

continued at:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/explodedview/

Assume she is ideologically acceptable.

What do we know about Miers? She rose, as a not very attractive woman, to the top of Texas business law firms, the Texas Bar, and rhe ABA. In an Oval Office surrounded by the likes of Rove, Cheney, Hughes, she not only thrived, but prospered. This is one champion schmoozer.

Now we have just added one intellectual heavyweight asshole to SCOTUS (“Dean Starr”?). The idea that Kennedy, or Souter, or Thomas will be moved ten or twenty percent in a favorable direction by have an additional intellectual barking briliiancies from the left chair while Roberts is barking brilliancies from the right is just stupid.

She will play “good cop” to Roberts’ “bad cop”.

“Now David, I know John can be a little hard to take sometimes. It is just his way. I really like your ideas on the case, but I don’t quite understand the reasoning in the third paragraph. Could you help me out? Here, have a cookie.”

It is a frigging brilliant pick. It is not contempt, it is not cronyism. You don’t build a basketball team with five point guards.