Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (247702)	5/11/2010 11:31:51 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

She's an Obama "buddy" pick. Harvard Law, Wall Street you know the rest.

To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (247702)	5/11/2010 11:39:49 AM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Harriet Miers >>>She's never lived in the real world. The two years at the law firm don't even count,<<< My leanings have been Republican - until Bush II. I don't like/trust liberalism. Having said that, lets recall Bush II's nomination of Harriet Miers and how she was torn to pieces. No judicial experience!!!! She was in fact probably a horrible choice - to be expected of Bush. But watch and observe the liberal hypocrisy WRT Kagan. I mean - Pubs even tore into Miers, showing some sense of objectivity and putting aside politics to do what is right. You won't hear a peep from the Dems about Kagan's lack of experience. I mean...and why would that be an issue...she pays attention to other people's feelings. And do what she "feels" is right. To be sure it isn't quite an apples and apples comparison. I am sure that Kagan is a good bit smarter than Miers and more knowledgeable in the Constitution. Of course being knowledgeable in the Constitution also allows for effective worming around it or otherwise rewriting it from the bench. Per Wiki: On October 3, 2005, Bush nominated Miers to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Miers's nomination was criticized from people all over the political spectrum based on her never having served as a judge, her perceived lack of intellectual rigor, her close personal ties to Bush, and her lack of a clear record on issues likely to be encountered as a Supreme Court Justice. Many notable conservatives vigorously criticized her nomination, and numerous conservative groups normally considered part of Bush's political base planned to mount an organized opposition campaign. Miers met with senators after her nomination was announced, and in those meetings she was ill-prepared and uninformed on the law.[22] Senator Tom Coburn told her privately that she "flunked" and "[was] going to have to say something next time."[22] In mock sessions with lawyers, Miers had difficulty expressing her views and explaining basic constitutional law concepts.[23] Miers had no experience in constitutional law, and did not have extensive litigation experience; at her Texas law firm, she had been more of a manager.[24] Miers had rarely handled appeals and did not understand the complicated constitutional concepts senators asked of her.[24] To White House lawyers, Miers was "less an attorney than a law firm manager and bar association president."[25]