so? and?
The Space Ace points out in comments to my earlier post about Miers that "John Marshall never even went to law school".
So? Einstein published on relativity while working in the Swiss Patent Office. What's your point? Since Miers is quoted as saying that Bush is the smartest man she's ever known, I think it's safe to say that she's no Einstein.
But I guess we shouldn't care too much at her lack of relevant experience - maybe she can be home-schooled in constitutional law.
2 Comments:
My point is that you don't have to be a judge in order to be a very positive influence on the Supreme Court. Marshall had no legal training at all. At least Miers is an attorney and presumably had some exposure to Constitutional Law in her law school days. Home schooling will probably be unnecessary.
The "instant bios" I've read about her say she had some "trial law experience". Frankly, that is a better recommendation to me than a lawyer who has been a corporate counsel specializing in SEC matters for one of the Dow Jones Industrial Average companies. And I know for sure that I would prefer a competent trial attorney on the bench than an ivory-tower law professor from the University of Myriad Legal Theories.
If the nominee had been someone outrageously unqualified and/or blatently ideological, I'd be far more concerned than I am at the moment. I await some kind of meaningful - not partisan - look at her qualifications. Then I'll decide if she is a good nominee or a bad one.
But right now there's not much to go on other than superficial stuff. If superficial stuff mattered, I might have been really upset by Ruth Bader Ginsberg's nomination because she looks like the Wicked Witch of the West. And that has been relevent - - not at all!
Of course, one might think that even as idiotic as Bush has shown himself to be that he would learn from his recent crony disaster with Brown. But, no, he is just picking a buddy again, without regard to relevant experience...
Post a Comment
<< Home