Harriet Miers

Show me in the Constitution where it lists the qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice.

As far as I can tell, although not explicitly listed, are two qualifications.  The first is that the candidate be breathing.  Historically, we've replaced Justices who stopped.  The second would be that they must be Human. As much as I love dogs, I don't think a canine Justice will be appointed anytime soon. 
In my copy of the Constitution, there is no requirement to have any opinion on anything.  (I'm still looking for the word Abortion, but that is another argument for another time.)  There is no requirement to have a judicial philosophy.  There is no requirement to be a judge or a lawyer.  If you were the President and you could get the Senate to buy off on it, you could appoint your unemployed, illiterate brother-in-law. 

OK, Personally, I believe the ideal justice would intrerpret the law, not extrapolate it out of something not even thought of or even worse, just make it up as you go along.  I believe a justice should be someone schooled in the law.  I also believe that the President has a right to nominate whom he wants.  Now I know there is no requirements laid down for anything, but the nominee should be an upstanding lawyer, free from scandal and taint. 

Apparently Ms. Miers meets whatever criteria the President set.  I've decided to come down on the side of the President on this one.  She may not be my ideal choice, but I don't think she is a bad one either.  On the other hand, I'm also not a lawyer.  Most of us blogging about this aren't either.  That doesn't mean we can't have an opinion, but it does mean we are probably have to form our opinion based on what someone else's reporting. 

So on this one, I'll take the President's word on it for now.  We'll see how it pans out in the days to come.  I know, sort of a left handed endorsement, but it's the best I can do for the moment.

UPDATE:  Just found this at Publius Rendezvous:

The "Coalition of the Chillin'" is meant to be an expression of patience. It is not an endorsement of any kind for Harriet Miers, which means anyone is free to retract any support for this nominee. Plain and simply, this collection of bloggers is a means through which everyone participating is planning to keep a calm, even keel throughout this process in a show of solidarity. We as a group plan to ascertain the surroundings and goings on before coming to any conclusions.

Sign me up!

 

VW

Comments

[Cynthia]

Hey Bro, I agree with you on this one. There have been others that were not judges and they did a fine job on the Supreme Court. I don't know much about her, but it appears most people don't and there are a lot of conservatives that don't like this pick. I'm sure there are a lot of liberals that don't like it either, but give her a chance.

[Violence Worker]

I heay Sis, and I would say the same thing if Kerry was elected. The President has the right to appoint whome he chooses and to have them confirmed as long as they meet a high standard for honesty and ethics. That's the way we've always done it.

I did not like any of Clinton's picks, but I didn't oppose them and had I been in the Senate, I would have probably voted for them.

The Senate's job is to advise and consent, not divide and dissent.

VW

[Cindy]

Hey Bro, I have no problem with either person the President has picked. I don't care for all of Roberts beliefs, but in the long run, I think he will be a good Chief Justice. I probably won't care for all of Meirs beliefs either, but if she gets there, I'm sure she will do the best job she can. And wait a few years, if a Dem gets in and a conservative judge leaves and a liberal is appointed, the laws will change again anyway.

Like the new look. Easier on the old eyes.