Opaque Lucidity: Texas Here, Texas There

October 03, 2005

Texas Here, Texas There

We're home from our long weekend in Tejas; a good time was had by all. I'm out of the loop news-wise, so please give me until the morning to sort everything out.

For now, it looks as if Texas has contributed a new Supreme Court nominee to the fold. On first glance, it would appear that Harriet Miers has no judicial experience. While it is not necessary to be a judge in order to serve on the Supreme Court, I can't image the Senate approving anyone who has not. Yes, there is historical precedent, but not in modern times.

There may be a better explanation forthcoming, but I can't quite understand the President's thinking with this nomination. Surely there are qualified judges who would make better nominees.

UPDATE: As Tony mentioned below, I was mistaken when I said that no modern Supreme Court justice lacked judicial experience before his appointment to the bench. In fact, 40% of the justices ever appointed to the SC had never been judges before.

Posted by Matthew at October 3, 2005 09:01 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.opaquelucidity.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/559

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Texas Here, Texas There:

» forex trading from forex trading
forex trading sev'ring ( notwithstanding their testicular sanctus-bell ) not any regarded but from boatmens to sayso : ( the com [Read More]

Tracked on October 11, 2005 05:36 AM

» penelope cruz from penelope cruz
penelope cruz [Read More]

Tracked on October 16, 2005 08:05 AM

» texas holdem poker software from texas holdem poker software
In your free time, check out the sites in the field of texas holdem probabilities [Read More]

Tracked on November 19, 2005 03:31 PM

Comments

Holy Sh!*

Is that a non-PRO REPUBLICAN sentiment I hear???

Matt, did you have too much tabasco sauce while you where there??? I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Posted by: Troy Overton

at October 4, 2005 10:30 AM

Acutally, Matt, I think you goofed... there certainly is quite a bit of precedent, including William Rehnquist, Earl Warren, and Louis Brandeis.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

Yes, the list thins out towards modern times. However, considering this is about 40% of the total justices appointed, I don't think it's as a big of a deal as some people are going to make it.

Note that I'm not for or against this appointee -- in fact, I know nearly nothing about her. Just thought I'd point out that some of the most celebrated justices have come from non-judicial backgrounds.

Posted by: Tony

at October 4, 2005 08:52 PM