Straight from the horse's mouth
Letterman told a good one last night. Something like: "Harriet Miers has been nominated to the Supreme Court. She's never been a judge -- well, once in a bakeoff... but the folks in Congress are very frustrated with her, because she's never voiced her opinions. And I'm thinking, 'God, where do you get a woman like that?'"
Actually, she has been speaking her mind, and her assembled writings are here.
| Posted at 1:57 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (10)
I guess it's just my life in academia, but why is it that high profile women always have to put up with commens about their hair styles or dresses but men do not? Anyone love John Roberts's helmet head look? Didn't see many blogs devoted to that!
Posted by paul | October 5, 2005 4:08 PM
Well, if men wore more dresses, I'm sure there'd be more comments.
Posted by RAH | October 5, 2005 4:13 PM
Hey, I goofed on DeLay's rug. Lott's, too.
With Ms. Miers, I'm a bit more concerned about what's under the coiffure.
Posted by Jack Bog | October 5, 2005 4:16 PM
She is reputed to consider George Bush the most brilliant person she knows -- if so, she has either a limited sphere of acquaintances or a unique standard for intellect.
Posted by Allan L. | October 5, 2005 5:14 PM
Or a penchant for kissing ass.
Posted by raging red | October 5, 2005 5:38 PM
why does the fact that she's never been a judge seem to be getting all riled up?
The list of Supreme Court Justices who were never judge's is very, very long, including:
Justices Rehnquist, Warren, Brandeis, Jackson, Douglas, ....the list goes on and on....
Posted by Steve | October 5, 2005 6:41 PM
Lately, most of the justices have been promoted from judgeships. Possible problems with departing from that include the chance that the appointee is not qualified to judge, has bad judgment, or can misrepresent herself to the senate and the public owing to the lack of a track record of judging. If memory serves, Clarence Thomas wasn't a judge either. There's another problem (or an embodiment of all of the above the above) if I'm right on that. Still, history shows there's no fundamental reason why an otherwise qualified person without a history of judging can't sit on the SupCt.
Posted by Allan L. | October 5, 2005 7:40 PM
As some have recently said "It's not what you know...". This take it on (my) faith attitude of GWB is perplexing at best. George Will's column in todays O summed up the queasiness that a lot of traditional conservatives are feeling about this nomination.
Posted by Ronald M | October 5, 2005 7:55 PM
That's good. I've been very queasy for nearly five years now.
Posted by Jack Bog | October 5, 2005 8:06 PM
Alexander Hamilton, says Randy Barnett in the Wall Street Journal, foresaw it all, except the possibility of a President without shame.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354
Posted by Miles | October 5, 2005 8:32 PM