Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
In the first place, Rehnquist himself had no judicial experience when he was appointed. In fact, numerous Justices have been appointed without prior judicial experience. The only real harm in that is that there is no track record on which to politicize the appointee.
|
Certainly true. I don't remember the Rehnquist nomination, but presume that he was a particularly esteemed member of the bar at the time. Here -- who knows? I don't pretend to be up to date on all of the prominent lawyers, but there are loads of people who've never heard of this woman.
Quote:
|
The woman was the first partner of a large Texas firm, the first woman to be elected the President of the Dallas bar, the first woman to be voted president of the Texas state bar. She's obviously a highly-accomplished lawyer.
|
Perhaps. These are all good accomplishments, to be sure, but I don't really know that this is SCOTUS material.
Harry Reid's earlier comments about wanting someone with actual litigating experience -- someone who's actually taken a deposition, tried a case, etc -- are well taken, but I didn't know he meant it to be to the exclusion of any judicial experience.
Quote:
|
I can guarantee that Bush knows her politics and her judicial leanings. It's just the rest of the country that doesn't and won't unless she's affirmed. Does anybody here really think that Bush would appoint someone who was not in his mold to be his personal counsel, let alone to the SC?
|
I agree with this. In some respects, I'm more concerned about a nominee whose primary attribute has been her loyalty to the president.
