Poll: Would You Vote to confirm Harriet Miers?

[Gordon B]

Would you vote to confirm Harriet Miers for SCOTUS? A strong leaning that could possibly be reversed in her confirmation hearings should be marked as "yes" or "no" rather than undecided.

[sonic1]

No. Even though her nomination pissed off the conservatives-that they wanted someone more conservative I could not, in all honesty, give my blessings for a totally unqualified person.

I fear Bush's next choice though. If that is his first pick, imagine his second picks!

[Darryl G. Thomas]

No. And not just for her reputed political leanings. I don't think she's a serious choice (from what I've read about her).

[Monte Smith]

I've got to have some hearings before I could make a decision.

I feel the same way Monte does. The hearings should (hopefully) help
clarify.

And as others have said, I fear a worse pick: a truly entrenched conservative.

Even worse, she could turn out like Thomas, and be another
Scalia shadow, with no original thought, no open mind, and a willingness to
align herself with the GOP both in and out of the Court.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Yeah, Monte's right. I can't believe I took the George Will position on this one.

Still, from what I've read from the punditocracy I'm not too impressed with Miers. Plus, I really don't understand the right-wing furor over this one.

[graypencil]

Would you want your nephew who took first place in all the trumpet competitions in school, ( and thus was assumed to be a decent trumpet player by some standards ) but had never played in a band of any kind to be plunked down in the lead chair of ,say, the Count Basie band in its heyday ..

..or would you rather have Snooky Young ?

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I've got to have some hearings before I could make a decision.

Monte, achillies and Darryl, why don't you vote "undecided?" We can start another poll after the hearings where you can change to yes or no.

Achillies I disagree with your characterization of Thomas. He votes against Scalia on 21% of non-unanimous opinions including perhaps the two most important decisions of the last court term, Gonzales v. Raich, and Kelo v. New London. That doesn't sound like a shadow to me. Neither is it fair to say he has no original thoughts. He's apparently still a victim of the caricatured view of him by Democrats at his confirmation hearings.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Monte, achillies and Darryl, why don't you vote "undecided?" We can start another poll after the hearings where you can change to yes or no.

But I'm not sure if I am undecided! Why isn't there a "Not sure if you're undecided" option? Narrow thinking, Gordon!

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Monte, achillies and Darryl, why don't you vote "undecided?" We can start another poll after the hearings where you can change to yes or no.

Achillies I disagree with your characterization of Thomas. He votes against Scalia on 21% of non-unanimous opinions including perhaps the two most important decisions of the last court term, Gonzales v. Raich, and Kelo v. New London. That doesn't sound like a shadow to me. Neither is it fair to say he has no original thoughts. He's apparently still a victim of the caricatured view of him by Democrats at his confirmation hearings.

Gordon, perhaps he's changed, but I remember quite a few articles over recent years discussing how he rarely asks questions in court (and didn't at all for years!), and is well known to defer nearly everything to his clerks. Please point me to some other viewpoints that show some subtantive proof of Thomas' intellectual prowess.

[Root Doctor]

No, and not just because she looks like Zell Miller.

[Paul B]

I would vote not to confirm.

She is utterly unqualified for the job. Period.

[GoodSpeak]

I voted no as well....however, I can't help but wonder if this isn't a set-up job for the next nomination who could be far worse.

[walto]

No. I'd support her for loaf of pumpernickel though.

[GoodSpeak]

Good one, Walto

[crawjo]

I voted undecided. I fully accept that her appointment reeks of cronyism and that she is astoundingly underqualified for the position, but I still believe she deserves a fair chance. I think it is possible to be a fawning acolyte and also have little qualification for the Supreme Court and yet still end up being a reasonably decent justice.

[walto]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I think it is possible to be a fawning acolyte and also have little qualification for the Supreme Court and yet still end up being a reasonably decent justice.

I wouldn't want to deny that, but I think fawning acolyte + minimal qualifications is sufficient grounds for a NO vote. (I mean, it's possible that Jenna would turn out to be an OK justice too, if we'd just give her the chance.)

[Pete C]

Whatever happened to Orrin Hatch as a contender?

[Paul B]

Sorry, but given all the talent out there, there's just no excuse for this utter mediocrity to be confirmed. In fact, she shouldn't even have been given a chance, and I hope they rake her over the coals during the hearings. Someone who is inexperienced isn't likely to somehow "morph" into great a justice, anymore than some modestly talented musician could by some slight of hand turn into another Coltrane. The notion is preposterous.

[Pete C]

However, some considered Warren, who, I believe, had no judicial experience, Super Chief, so nothing is absolute.

[Paul B]

It's not just judicial experience, it's experience period. She has not argued any major cases (and none before the Supreme Court), and clearly is not considered much of a heavy hitter on any front, starting with the third-tier law school she attended and going on from there.

[Dr Dave]

I don't need hearings to know that Harriet Miers is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Last time I looked, it was not enough to be a nice, detail-oriented person to make the High Court. Of course, I may be misinformed. Maybe Roman Hruska will come back from the dead to convince me otherwise.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

Last time I looked, it was not enough to be a nice, detail-oriented person to make the High Court.

Sounds like she could go for my job, though I'm not sure my boss is ready for nice.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

I don't need hearings to know that Harriet Miers is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Last time I looked, it was not enough to be a nice, detail-oriented person to make the High Court. Of course, I may be misinformed. Maybe Roman Hruska will come back from the dead to convince me otherwise.

Maybe Dan Coats can do the trick.

Wikipedia:
Hruska is best remembered in American political history for a 1970 speech he made to the Senate urging them to confirm the nomination of Harold Carswell to the Supreme Court. Responding to criticism that Carswell had been a mediocre judge, Hruska claimed that:

"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?"

This speech was criticized by many, and Carswell was eventually defeated. Hruska's sentiment, howewer, appeared to be echoed in 2005 by former Senator Dan Coats in his defense of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers:

"If a great intellectual powerhouse is a requirement to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole."

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by walto

I wouldn't want to deny that, but I think fawning acolyte + minimal qualifications is sufficient grounds for a NO vote.

I agree with that. There is sufficient grounds here for a NO vote, and I certainly wouldn't hold it against anyone if they did, regardless of the outcome of the hearings. But for me personally, I'd still be willing to vote YES depending on the hearings and my review of her record, scanty though it certainly is.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Dan Coats

and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people

Last time I looked that wasn't the mandate of the court.

[bluenoter]

Undecided, simply because, like several of you, I'm afraid that the second-choice person would be someone worse.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Undecided, simply because, like several of you, I'm afraid that the second-choice person would be someone worse.

I would rather see Bush nominate a distinguished juror whose opinions I disagree with than with a nonentity like Harriet Miers.

[cookie]

Originally Posted by graypencil

Would you want your nephew who took first place in all the trumpet competitions in school, ( and thus was assumed to be a decent trumpet player by some standards ) but had never played in a band of any kind to be plunked down in the lead chair of ,say, the Count Basie band in its heyday ..

..or would you rather have Snooky Young ?

I love it when someone speaks to me in language I can understand. Great analogy, GP.

My problem with it is that she is Bush's lawyer and that, if confirmed now, she would sit on the bench during the end of his administration. I think that's a simple conflict of interest. Sure, George would be gone long before Harriet, but even if it's for a little while, I still don't think it's right. If she's as qualified as Bush says, then let another president nominate her in another time. But she should not be appointed by THIS president. It just plain ol' don't look right.

That and the fact that she has no real experience in constitutional law should make her an automatic "no."

[patricia]

Originally Posted by cookie

I love it when someone speaks to me in language I can understand. Great analogy, GP.

My problem with it is that she is Bush's lawyer and that, if confirmed now, she would sit on the bench during the end of his administration. I think that's a simple conflict of interest. Sure, George would be gone long before Harriet, but even if it's for a little while, I still don't think it's right. If she's as qualified as Bush says, then let another president nominate her in another time. But she should not be appointed by THIS president. It just plain ol' don't look right.

That and the fact that she has no real experience in constitutional law should make her an automatic "no."

I think that the most troublesome part of Ms Meirs being so close to President Bush is that she would be the swing vote and has been described as someone who would reflect the views of the man she has described as the most brilliant man she has ever met. Whew.
That, coupled with this being a lifetime appointment seems more like a reward for her loyal service and total devotion than a recognition of her abilities as anything but a loyal associate to President Bush.
But, the other troubling part is if this woman is not accepted for nomination, who else could be comin' down the pike who is even worse? Bush has to get somebody's hips in that seat.