Comments on: Commentary: The “Krauthammer factor” http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/commentary-the-krauthammer-factor/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: LyricalReckoner http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/commentary-the-krauthammer-factor/comment-page-1/#comment-8179 LyricalReckoner Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:15:29 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/commentary-the-krauthammer-factor/#comment-8179 At this point, I have no opinion as to whether Harriet Miers is well qualified to be a justice of the Supreme Court. I don't know much about her. She certainly doesn't have the background I would expect, but I don't hold that against her. I like the idea of finding someone who doesn't have the usual background. And so I don't agree with those who've made up their minds: people like Bill Kristol and Virginia Postrel. I think we should go ahead with the hearings. In the past, Mr. Kristol's told us that the Senate should give the president's nominee an fair, up-or-down vote. I can see no good reason why Ms. Miers shouldn't have her day in court. She might surprise us all. Maybe she won't surprise us. Maybe she'll present herself as some deep, dark secret who can't discuss anything of substance lest it jeopardize our entire future. In that case, the Senate rejects her. Fine! That's the way it's supposed to work, right? Let's at least give the woman a chance. What about the next nominee? What if he/she isn't a lawyer? There's nothing that says only lawyers can be justices of the Supreme Court, and I'm convinced a law degree is not a prerequisite for the position. A candidate must have a solid understanding of constitutional law and civil law and criminal law and common law and all that to be found competent, but you can have all that without a law degree. I hope the next candidate has a PhD in mathematics or engineering. What we need, methinks, is someone has a solid understanding of logic and law. Now . . . imagine this (you can go ahead and imagine it even if you are aware that President Bush has said he wouldn't even consider it): imagine that the next nominee has a degree in engineering (and a degree in law that wasn't used for long) and is neither a Christian nor a Jew! Imagine some agnostic engineer being nominated! He/she knows all about the law, but doesn't believe. In that case, what would we be most concerned with: the lack of judicial experience, or the lack of belief? At this point, I have no opinion as to whether Harriet Miers is well qualified to be a justice of the Supreme Court. I don’t know much about her. She certainly doesn’t have the background I would expect, but I don’t hold that against her. I like the idea of finding someone who doesn’t have the usual background.

And so I don’t agree with those who’ve made up their minds: people like Bill Kristol and Virginia Postrel. I think we should go ahead with the hearings. In the past, Mr. Kristol’s told us that the Senate should give the president’s nominee an fair, up-or-down vote. I can see no good reason why Ms. Miers shouldn’t have her day in court. She might surprise us all.

Maybe she won’t surprise us. Maybe she’ll present herself as some deep, dark secret who can’t discuss anything of substance lest it jeopardize our entire future. In that case, the Senate rejects her. Fine! That’s the way it’s supposed to work, right? Let’s at least give the woman a chance.

What about the next nominee? What if he/she isn’t a lawyer?

There’s nothing that says only lawyers can be justices of the Supreme Court, and I’m convinced a law degree is not a prerequisite for the position. A candidate must have a solid understanding of constitutional law and civil law and criminal law and common law and all that to be found competent, but you can have all that without a law degree.

I hope the next candidate has a PhD in mathematics or engineering. What we need, methinks, is someone has a solid understanding of logic and law.

Now . . . imagine this (you can go ahead and imagine it even if you are aware that President Bush has said he wouldn’t even consider it): imagine that the next nominee has a degree in engineering (and a degree in law that wasn’t used for long) and is neither a Christian nor a Jew! Imagine some agnostic engineer being nominated! He/she knows all about the law, but doesn’t believe.

In that case, what would we be most concerned with: the lack of judicial experience, or the lack of belief?

]]> By: commenter http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/commentary-the-krauthammer-factor/comment-page-1/#comment-8178 commenter Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:48:52 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/commentary-the-krauthammer-factor/#comment-8178 This may be a "factor," but it is kind of silly to present it as a face-saving exit strategy by the White House, isn't it? I think any objective thinker -- including those in the Senate -- would consider the documents at issue here -- internal White House materials created by the Counsel -- to be at the pinnacle of materials protected by executive privilege, colored by attorney client concerns. I'm not sure this material can be compared to the task force or old Roberts executive branch files. It is stuff the Senate would never consider asking for normally, and that no President would ever consider releasing, as the Senate Judiciary Committee well knows. So, the Senate seeking the documents -- when they know they will not be released -- is the Senate trying to find a way to dump Miers without facing the merits. But the White House response is the only one that can be given in the circumstances, i.e., "NO." The timing of the explanation seems coincidental (i.e., when asked about Miers, Bush provided the canned Miers answer, which includes the unequivocal denial along with a bunch of other stuff that also was not responsive to a question that called for a nonresponsive answer). And the White House will not decide whether this becomes decisisve -- the Senate will -- because no White House would ever release this stuff. This may be a “factor,” but it is kind of silly to present it as a face-saving exit strategy by the White House, isn’t it? I think any objective thinker — including those in the Senate — would consider the documents at issue here — internal White House materials created by the Counsel — to be at the pinnacle of materials protected by executive privilege, colored by attorney client concerns. I’m not sure this material can be compared to the task force or old Roberts executive branch files. It is stuff the Senate would never consider asking for normally, and that no President would ever consider releasing, as the Senate Judiciary Committee well knows. So, the Senate seeking the documents — when they know they will not be released — is the Senate trying to find a way to dump Miers without facing the merits. But the White House response is the only one that can be given in the circumstances, i.e., “NO.” The timing of the explanation seems coincidental (i.e., when asked about Miers, Bush provided the canned Miers answer, which includes the unequivocal denial along with a bunch of other stuff that also was not responsive to a question that called for a nonresponsive answer). And the White House will not decide whether this becomes decisisve — the Senate will — because no White House would ever release this stuff.

]]>