Skip to main content

View Diary: Picking their judge (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Listens to his lawyer? (none)
    Sounds to me like Kos has taken an opposing view of her credentials than that advocated by you and Matt.

    I think her credentials stack up well to Powell.  

    Kos nails it:  This is a woman who became the head of a fairly major regional law firm and maintained her position after accomplishing a merger.  That's a major accomplishment in the legal field in this day and age even in liberal places like SF, I'm sure it was precedent setting in Texas.  And the respect of her peers counts for something.  This woman became the head of the Texas Bar Ass'n.  She was a power in the ABA.  She was elected to the Dallas City Council (which is much more impressive than being elected to the Richmond school board.

    But, you know what?  None of that matters.  Because while she might be qualified in the abstract, she's getting this job out of sheer cronyism.  And that should be the reframe.

    •  I agree that that's the frame (none)
      It doesn't mean that we vote against her, necessarily, but we use it against Bush himself.

      On the credentials: she's no Powell.  But that's no knock on her; Powell was a real name in his day.

    •  Cronyism implies unqualified (none)
      Look up any definition of "cronyism," and an integral part of the meaning is that the person is not qualified.  "Sheer cronyism" is appointing someone who is not qualified, otherwise it's closer to political patronage.

      She's not qualified enough, and the only reason she got the nod is because she is a political (and personal) friend of the president.  There are numerous more qualified individuals.

      You can't "reframe" this to be about cronyism without also acknowledging that she's not qualified enough.  I don't think there's a cost to that; her zero judicial experience (especially in light of the 200 women on the federal bench and who know's how many on state appellate and supreme court levels) is part of her unqualified nature and goes hand in hand with her appointment solely because of her relationship with the president.

      "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

      by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:36:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't get bogged down in the debate. (none)
        If the argument is she is NOT qualified, it can be lost because a case can be made that she is qualified.

        But, if the focus is on the fact that she is getting the nod because she is the President's crony then it can't be lost because she clearly is a member of his inner circle.  She can be portrayed a crony even if she is only not AS qualified as many other more deserving candidates, as opposed to being unqualified.  

      •  That's not entirely accurate (none)
        Another manifestation of cronyism is rewarding a loyal political friend.  There's a risk of getting an unqualified nominee through political cronyism, but there's an equally important risk of getting an ideologue who will be guided by ulterior motives.

        Miers is a political crony -- she's on the same level as Karl Rove, just more willing to operate from the shadows.

        There are serious questions as to whether she's qualified.  There are also, though, serious questions as to whether she's willing to move beyond the political scheming and act as an impartial jurist for the rest of her life.  Is there anything to suggest she's capable of this?  Not that I've seen.

        Find out what's the matter with K Street at

        by dtmky on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:56:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  not qualified, most qualified (none)
        should be the question.  if you select your crony over someone with superior qualifications, you've done wrong.  the argument shouldn't be whether she is qualified, but rather why she was selected as opposed to say, one of the other 2000 lawyers in the country with superior credentials?

        this pick stinks to high heaven.

        •  I can see (none)
          arguing that she is not the "most qualified" choice out there, but that's not as strong as arguing (truthfully) that she is not qualified at all.  A politically savvy, successful legal career does not overcome the huge downside of zero judicial experience.  She's not ready for this job, Bush should have put her on the federal bench early in his presidency, so that she could have had at least a few years under her belt before being nominated.

          "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

          by Slim Tyranny on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 05:49:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site