My question here is, are the Democrats being snookered again by wily Rove, et al? Consider Miers to be ideologically married, hook, line and sinker to the right to life movement without any reservations for judicial caution or analysis on a case by case basis. Yet, despite some good legal credentials, she is considered to be far from Supreme Court quality - or is she?
Consider also that one way to direct attention away from her wild and wooly belief system would be for the Republicans to attack her lack of judicial credentials. What better way to take the wind out of Democrat sails by being the first to point out her shortcomings? The Democrats might not then even attempt a filibuster because they would think they had already won - that even the Republicans agree with them - that is, until the nomination would go to the Senate for an up/down vote!
Thus, I worry much more about her evangelical Christian leanings than her competency as a Supreme Court judge.
In my opinion, given native-born capabilities, IQ, temperament, etc. and a reasonable education and interest in law and society, anyone can ‘rise to the occasion' on the bench, given the circumstances.
In the animal world, if the leader of those critters who live in flocks, packs, etc. are killed or maimed, the leadership is quickly assumed by a subservient member of the group. And believe it or not, the character and temperament of the new leader changes to fit the new job. If you think about it, a leaderless society would be in jeopardy and not survive, evolution obviously does not permit this.
So, has someone who is not a lawyer ever served on the Supreme Court Bench? A Google search tells us: "Although the Supreme Court of the United States has never had a non-lawyer as a Justice, there are a number of state courts with non-lawyers on the bench."
Levi Woodbury, named to the Supreme Court by President Polk in 1851, was the first Justice to have formally attended law school. Prior to this, all Justices had gotten their training through apprenticeships, similar to the British system. The apprentice system was in common use through the first century of the Supreme Court's history, and James Byrnes in 1941 was the last Supreme Court Justice trained through apprenticeship.Consider that Supreme Court justices have not always been Federal judges. Again, Google shows us that:
* Former President Taft was named Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Harding in 1921. He remains the only person ever to have served in both offices. [Did you know that President Warren Harding is thought by some to have belonged to the Klu Klux Klan? This is unsubstantiated, of course.
* Earl Warren was the sitting governor of California when President Eisenhower named him Chief Justice in 1953.
* Sandra Day O'Connor, a former member of the Arizona state legislature, was a judge on the Arizona State Court of Appeals when President Reagan named her to the Supreme Court in 1981.
* Chief Justice William Rehnquist was the Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Nixon Administration from 1969 to his confirmation to the Supreme Court in 1971. Prior to that he had worked in private practice in his home state of Arizona and had been a legal advisor to Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign for President.
No comments:
Post a Comment