The first Monday in October is upon us

[patsmor]

This little gem is at the Post today:
White House Counsel Would Replace Retiring Sandra Day O'ConnorPresident Bush named White House Counsel Harriet Miers, 60, to be associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court today

Comments

[patsmor]

As cellio says in the comments above, I think that without rulings, how does one tell if the candidate is a whiz on constitutional law?

Now, someone who has argued before the Supremes several times will have been required to research the constitutionality of their arguments, so that would give us a clue. Or, someone who is a recent clerk for one of the Supremes might well (but no experience in the world, eek!).

But, absent rulings, I'm not willing to guess.

Rotsa ruck

[metageek]

I think they nominated her because she's a pig in a poke-as White House Counsel, all her recent work is covered under executive privilege and attorney-client privilege, so they can get away with stonewalling.

[cvirtue]

I think it's important that someone have experience listening to others arguing cases and analyzing them, because that's what they're going to be doing with the other Supremes. Having an academic law background is great, but judging is a different thing.

It's probably not as extreme as saying "if you wear clothes everyday of course you can make your own" but it's that sort of thing.