My honest opinion is that the reason Bush chose Miers is because he knew that no matter who he chose and how qualified they were, the democrats were going to go after her like pirahna on raw meat. Roberts was one thing. But this nomination will swing the balance of the Supreme Court back to a conservative majority. I think he purposefully chose Miers to be defeated by both dems and repubs so that the next candidate he chooses will be rapidly approved. At that point, the dems will not want to appear unreasonable. And the repubs will be anxious to push ANYBODY through.

Speaking of cronyism, Erskine Bowles as President of the UNC System? Couldn't get him elected as senator 2 times so you appoint him to a 400,000 a year job. That's cronyism at its finest.

truth,

I didn't notice. How did Erskine get appointed? Who make the appointment? Is this Easley's cronyistic action?

Thanks.

Uh...truth? The president of the UNC system is not appointed. The president is selected by the UNC board of governors, and if I understand correctly he was unanimously elected. And I'm quite sure that among the many members of the board, there are in fact some people from both major parties. For example, former governor Jim Holshouser is a republican. Truth, you often challenge folks to seek the facts before posting. You should do the same.

I will say that I am intrigued by your idea that Bush propped up Miers as a pawn so the "real" coiice would sail through. The conspiracy theorist in me had me thinking that the conservatives were expressing mock outrage when they were in fact convinced that she's right wing all the way. Your theory is another one that makes me suspicious of the whole thing.

I love how everyone is arm chair quarterbacking this one, but I haven't heard of such a stupid idea as impeaching a president because of a supreme court nomination. The president has the right to choose whomever he wants Mr. Scott, not someone you want. Read up:

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_Justice

"In order to become a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, an individual must be nominated by the President of the United States and approved by the U.S. Senate, with at least half of that body approving in the affirmative. Generally, a justice's qualifications are judged by the President and, most visibly, by a Senate hearing. There is no definitive qualification of age or experience that is a standard to be met; instead, there is a much more subjective process taken by the Senate, occasionally resulting in a sometimes controversial defeat of judicial nominees".

The Senate will ultimately decide, that's how the system works. Neither Randy Scott nor any of us know this nominee, so I'm going to wait & see what happens.

As for Delay, two grand juries dropped indictments, but Ronnie Earle shopped around and found another one. Let the process work itself out, ditto with Frist & Rove. That's the way the system works Randy. Would you like to be convicted of a crime before having had a trial, much less a complete investigation? Would you like everyone calling to send you to the slammer for 20 years before a trial?

I believe the letter writer would have been better prepared to offer criticism of the Presidents nominee had she read a bit of history before jumping off the cliff.

The writer would have found that Ms Meir would not be alone should she be appointed to the court as not having any experience as a judge. The writer would have found that 13, in addition to the late Chief Justice Rehnquist had never served judgeships on any bench. The would have found that, since 1900, 33 of the 61 justices had never served as a federal judge. She would have found among the names of these 13 judges were those who offered many different views after they were appointed. Here are the names of the 13 in case the writer would feel that these historical facts are just make believe:

A law school dean: Harlan Stone in 1925.

- Two governors: New York Gov. Charles Hughes in 1910 and California Gov. Earl Warren in 1953.

- Four attorneys general - William Moody in 1906, James McReynolds in 1914, Frank Murphy in 1940 and Tom Clark in 1949.

- Six attorneys: Joseph Lamar in 1910, Louis Brandeis in 1916, George Sutherland and Pierce Butler in 1922, Abe Fortas in 1965 and Lewis Powell in 1971. (Source: History of the US Supreme Court)

Perhaps in the mind of the writer had she been around when any of these were appointed, they would have been cronies. Certainly the presidents in these appointments did not appoint strangers.

If so called cronyism is an impeachable crime I wonder how many presidents would have served even a full first term.

OOPS memory slip, the she in this letter should have been he. It seems that I had read an almost identical letter in another paper where the writer was a she. My apoligies to Mr. Scott.

Wondering - what is the procedure for impeaching Karl Rove? Oops, just another rant. Never mind!!

Mr Produce:

Nice post... detailed, to the point, and you provided your source (though it would be nice to know if this was a book, or if a website you could give us a link). Good job!

I do not speak for the letter writer, but I took his words to mean that the offenses for consideration of impeachment were larger than simple cronyism (note the phrase "continued incompetence of the Bush administration" before the suggestion of impeachment). Again, Mr. Scott can speak for himself, but I think some of you might be missing his point.

Oh, and if simple cronysim isn't enough for impeachment, how about securities fraud (Mr. Frist), treason (Mr. Rove), fraud and dereliction of duty (Mr. Bush), and impersonating a human being (Mr. Delay)? Any of those work for you?

Howie, can you prove your accusations or did you, along with Mr. Scott, read Howard Dean's DNC talking points and just repeat them? I repeat, would you like to be sentenced for a crime before a complete investigation and trial?

Well I would like to take this opportunity to thank the democrats who post on this board. Thanks so much for sending the democrats to Raleigh not to mention re-electing Easley. I just love the 40% increase in vehicle tags. Way to go everyone. Gosh next year why don't ya'll send even more democrats to run our state, why stop at 40%. Oh and don't forget its the evil Republicans that are only for the rich. You democrats are sure looking out for us regular folks. Thanks for allowing them to steal even more of my money, what little of it I have.

I find something wrong when a person is to sit on the Supreme Court and has zeroe bench epxerience. I dont care if the person was selected by bush or clinton or is a personal favorite of Rush or was selected by comittee on Moveon. The SC court is not the place to find out if this person is qualified to be behind any bench in the first place.

MrP thanks for your info I must admit I did not know this but that doesnt change my opinion. I dont know how these people did and how they rank as SC judges. She may be a great lady or even a great lawyer, dont know and really dont care.

I dont agree with writer about the impeachment part with Bush and the others only lady time will tell what happens with them but it does seem Bush fills alot of his positions with extremely loyal people. Dont like it but it is nothing new, clinton did it, but a position as important as a SC judge who can not be removed is NOT a place to reward friends for their loyalty.

I am even more disappointed at the dems like Reid who are falling all over themselves to praise her. Is it me or are there others who think this has nothing to do with whether she is that good but more about pissing off the republicans. Again a STUPID game to be playing with such a critical choice.

Well we can’t hold “absolutely no experience as a judge at any level” as an issue – about 1/3rd of the Supreme Court judges fall there, including Rehnquist (as stated elsewhere).

I’m not so virulent about the impeachment of Bush or Frist, but Tom DeLay and Karl Rove all gotta go – they are a danger to our country.

And my sense is, contrary to Truths post – I see the Religions Right, not the Liberal Left, going after Miers “like pirahna on raw meat”, and I’m not worried about her appointment “swinging the balance of the Supreme Court back to a conservative majority”. From what I hear, she’s religions, but fair too – which is why the Right is scared – heaven forbid a fair person would get in the Court!

I do laugh at the same folks that were screaming “Let the president choose whomever he wants … “ during other recent nominations are now back peddling on that stance.

Come on Howie. Aren't we getting a little too literal? Appointed versus selected? I know all too well how he was 'selected'. Besides, the ultimate cronies are the ones who are on the Board of Governors. I've seen these folks in action. They show up on the first day of school and take all the best parking places while students and parents walk a mile to try to pay their tuition. Yet they put forth the idea that it is the students they care about. They are also the folks who approve and recommend 20-30% raises and bonuses during a recession for high-level administrators who do nothing while students and their parents struggle to find a way to afford to put their kids in school.

My definition of crony doesn't imply that democrats are only friends of democrats or republicans are only republicans. My definition of cronyism as it applies in today's world is that the rich are looking out for their rich buddies and the party-lines are just a front.

I guess my thinking is a conspiracy theory of sorts. I think Bush knows darn well what he's doing. And I think he has no intention of Miers ever being put on the Supreme Court. As far as the other repubs, I truly believe they want someone more conservative nominated.

How nice that everyone is looking over Trish's comment, that said don't worry, I got this one. Trish, I would like to thank you for casting a ignorant shadow on the republican party. No I am not happy about the price of tags being increased either, but to be honest it has been a very long time since they were increased. Also, as far as blaming democrats for sending someone to Raleigh, I am pretty sure that Republicans were allowed to vote in all of those elections as well. I know I was, and did. This is America, the one with the most votes won! Get over it!

Thanks so much for attacking me personally instead of what I wrote. Yeah I got off track of this letter but to be honest I really don’t care if Bush appointed a monkey. Nothing will ever be good enough for the democrats. And unlike you I’m a little more then “not happy”. Gas tax going up in January, all the other fees, tell me littleb, how are those of us struggling to survive, making every dollar count suppose to afford this increase? Where the heck are you democrats that are looking out for us “working people”? Hey since you don’t have a problem paying 40% more then do you mind paying my fee, as well as all the other fees that went up? Yes the Republicans were allowed to vote, and I am proud to say that the Republicans who got elected voted against this bill. Oh and by the way, Brain Harper is that you under a new id?

So what if it has been along time since tags were increased? They are high enough the way they were. It's bad enough that I have to pay sales tax on my vehicle. Then I have to pay separate property tax on it each year at inflated values. ThenI must pay an inspection sticker fee of $30 each year. And then tags. And then, and then, and then.

I voted against tax-hike donothing mike and I will again. Not that democrats are solely responsible for these costs. Just that Easley hasn't done anything to stand in the way of an additional tax on everything imaginable.

Well. I shouldn't say donothing. He finally managed to get his wish of a lottery but that was during his second term. He sold that lottery as the panacea of all the state's problems. Yet we still increased taxes on gasoline, cigarettes, candy, and cars not to mention our general sales tax rate. Let's see all these taxes go down as the lottery proceeds start rolling in. Yeah, right.

Trish,

lol, no, I'm still here as myself.

I don't like any tax increases either, but we have to pay for the states' expenses somehow.

Taxes suck, but they are necessary. Heck, if Bush decided to raise taxes slightly, I'd support his decision. For me, this isn't a dem/repub issue.

How much is enough taxes Brian? NC has the highest gas price in the continental US, should we raise the gas tax some more? Who can afford these tax increases the least? Ahhh, lower income people, the very people the Dems profess to look out for. No it's not a Dem/Repub issue.

If you had said spending is not a Dem/Repub issue, I would have agreed. Both sides spend like there is no tomorrow.

Regarding the complaints about taxes:

NC's gas tax has a portion of it that is based on a percentage of the price of gas. So this gas tax increase is an automatic thing, as the price of gas goes up. It's not as though the politicians are actively raising that tax. If you think that's not a good thing, then you need to convince them to adjust or get rid of that percentage-based component.

As far as complaining about individual taxes, for perspective you need to look at the overall tax burden. North Carolina's state and local tax burden is actually at the national average:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/47.html

Some taxes are higher for us, some are lower.

Hayes, my friend. I have at last been able to get on my other computer which hold links and actually send them.( I hope)
I know you like to read( maybe?) so since you mentioned not knowing much about the 13 who had served with no experience I am sending you some links about them. There are tons more but these give a brief overview of the contributions or lack of to the Court. I am sure you will recognize the name Brandeis, Warren and Fortas (one of Johnsons nominees who caught heck in confirmation and then resigned under less than pretty circumstances). My books on these are too much to scan and send, it would take days for anyone to read just this post.
Hope you enjoy and hope you learn a bit about past history of the Court and those who served with 0 experience.

Dang didn't send them: I'll try again Hayes:

Harlan Stone:1925- Calvin Colidge, FDR appointed to Chief Justice: http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_history/02_c12.html
Charles Huges: 1910, Chief Justice: 1931-41: http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_history/02_c11.html
Earl Warren: 1953-69, Was appointed as Chief Justice under Ike : http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_history/02_c14.html

Attorney Generals:
William Moody: http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/moody.htm
James McReynolds: Not very well liked by anyone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McReynolds
Frank Murphy: very little info on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Murphy
Tom Clark: a conservative appointed by Truman and a swing vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_C._Clark

Attorneys:
Joseph Lamar: Had little to no impact on the Court, an unknown even to Taft who appointed him: For more: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/64/biography
Louis Brandeis: First Judge of Jewish background on the SC: http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/brandeis.htm
George Sutherland: A conservative appointed by FDR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sutherland: A bit more on him: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S001080
Pierce Butler: One of the 4 horsemen on the Court during FDR’s New Deal , Very resistant to FDR’s New Deal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_Butler_(justice)
Abe Fortus: Gidion VS Wainwright, the right of poor to counsel: Filibustered by Republicans: Resigned under pressure: http://www.libarts.ucok.edu/history/faculty/roberson/course/1493/supplements/chp28
Lewis Powell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Franklin_Powell,_Jr.: Well liked and very respected by all: http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/sep98ttb/powell.htm

Dan,

Where did you get your information that NC has the highest gas prices in the continental US? The last survey I read had our state taxes right in line with the 50 state average. In fact, most of the taxes we pay on gas is per gallon, not per dollar, so when the price goes up, the states do not get much richer. The part that is variable is based on the wholesale index for the previous calendar year, so these short-term fluctuations do not change the amount allocated for state taxes.

When it comes to gas costs, why are the oil companies gettign afree pass? They gouge us on gas prices, and record record profits. I am truly a fan of supply and demand for the sake of competitive balance, but if companies are reporting record profits when times are hardest, that's opportunism run rampant (a.k.a. gouging). So what does our administration do to these companies who have us over a barrel? They give them $9 billion in tax breaks in the energy bill that passed a couple of weeks ago. Can anyone explain that to me?

Well Hayes, so much for a discussion on the Courts and the nominee. Looks like another sideline on taxes. Wonder how that got into the picture and what it has to do with a SC nomination.

sorry, mrproduce. that was probably my fault for mentioning erskine bowles. we shoulda taken our ritalin today, I guess.

But, to be fair, the original letter wasn't so much concerned about nominating a supreme court justice as it was leveling accusations of cronyism and incompetence at the Bush administration.

Sorry this has nothing to do with a SC nomination, but had to answer Howie:

Right from the N&R http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051005/NEWSREC0101/510050313/1001/NEWSREC0201

"As it stands, North Carolina motorists pay some of the highest gas prices in the nation, trailing only Hawaii and the District of Columbia." Not sure where they got that from, but I heard it all over the radio this week too.

Ok back to Harriett and her cronies.

"Wonder how that got into the picture and what it has to do with a SC nomination."

Sorry Mr. P that would be my fault. I went to renew my tags today and low and behold found out that they raised it 40%. I needed to vent and I thought a letter about impeachment seemed like just the place to find the democrats so I could thank them. It has nothing to do with the SC nomination and again I apologize for interrupting.

Forgot to put this juicy morsel in from the report:

Prices are high here for several reasons.

• The state has the highest gas tax in the region and one of the highest in the nation -- 27.5 cents a gallon.

Gov. Mike Easley has refused pleas to suspend the tax while prices are high, saying the state can't afford the loss of revenue.

Howie why don't you give Tax Hike Mike a call and see if he will lower the gas tax for Trish, she needs the extra savings as do the rest of us.

"no, I'm still here as myself."

Glad to see you are still Brian and under the same name! I go away for a spell and come back and it seems like some people are missing or changed names. Thought you might have. Is yellowdog still around?

MrP
Can i only say THANKS and WOW. That was some serious research. Dont worry I do enjoy reading especially this kind of stuff so rest knowing your effort will not be in vain. I owe you a drink when I come home for christmas this year. It will take sometime to read due to lack of time but I have written down all links so I can get to them after this post leaves us.

Thanks again for everything.

I guess if you look around you can always find some item to support your case.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/gas_tax/

The report in this article (from that liberal bastion the American Petroleum Institute) lists the state by state tax burden and ranks NC fifteenth. The one I referred to previously was effective at the end of Nov. 2004, so it may be out of date.

Dan, while I'm being challenged to call Governor Easley, have you placed a call to Mr. Bush? The feds have their hands in the pot too, to the tune of 18.4 cents per gallon. Haven't heard much call for reduction of that tax, but I guess the estate tax is more relevant to every day people.

And since we're all trying to return to the original topic of cronyism, I'll just present an opinion that is not supported by any document. I agree with what's been said many times that cronyism pervades all administrations, and is probably here forever. My complaint with this administration is that the people Mr. Bush places in critical positions could have drastic effects. People died because of slow federal response in the gulf region. Whether it was one, two, or five hundred. And the person responsible for that calamity was not an elected official, but a crony. If an unqualified person ascends to the highest court, simply because she has been loyal, then our system has flaws in it. What happened to cronies getting meaningless posts like Ambassador to Canada or Postmaster General?

To ALL:

I too complement Mr Produce on his Post!

Personally, I am kinda glad President Bush selected Ms. Miers. I am not sure how much Bench experience is required. What courts would you suggest, what states offer the best education to become a Justice on the Supreme Court? What regions of the Country best qualify a "Judicial" experience?

I wonder how many of you posting to this site supported Howard Dean or John Edward for President. John Edwards did not seem to know where he was supposed to be and therefore was frequently not present in the Senate. Howard Dean self destructed! Hopefully each of you had and have the good sense to know neither are capable leaders for this Country. Certainly their prior experience does not and did not exceptionally qualified them to be selected!

I hear nothing being said about most of the other current court members. I know Justice Thomas rarely ask questions? Is that a sign of a great mind on the Supreme Court? What about Ms Ginsberg or....

I know Mr Rehnquist, O'Connor and Roberts are or were very smart. Does that necessarily guarantee a great Justice?

President Clinton is considered Smart! His personal life speaks for itself!

Hillary Clinton is considered very Smart-She married a Future President who compromised our country and our morals, set a great example for the "beloved" CHILDREN! ( If you want to sell something use "Children" or Education".) Easly has perfected the use of these terms.

I know Rehnquist had no previous experience but was eulogized by both parties and, I believe highly respected by the majority of citizens in this Country. I certainly was happy to have him on the Court!

Before the Century turns, I suspect that Ms Miers will be as good a Justice as many of the current justices and equal in performance to the majority of justices who have preceeded her!

History will tell!

Hayes, nothing like sharing a good cup of strong coffee in front of a fire on a cold day in December with a friend. You may wish a dollop of brandy with yours.
I love history and have stacks of books but with the internet these days it is almost faster to look info up on the web. Interesting enough the article left out Felix Frankfurter as a no experience judge also but anyhow, he wuz.

Awww, Trish, don't take it so hard on the subject change, stuff happens. I suppose if I had gone to the tag office and gotten that surprise, I would have been ticked also. Venting is good for the stomach, holding it in causes ulcers. It aint too bad for just plain feeling better all over, especially after you get that kinda of "shiver" when you finish. hahahha.

shippy,

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Clinton was a liar and children should not look to him as an example of faithfulness.

BUT....

Bush in NO WAY should ever be considered a role model. His policies are tearing this country apart and he doesn't even care.

My 11 year old daughter is smart enough to realize George Bush is a liar. She hates that man and calls him stupid when she sees him on the tv. Normally, I'd shun this type of behavior, but she is only telling the truth.

Ahh, a little liberal. I'm so proud of her.

Trish:

Sorry to hear about the Vehicle Tag Price Increase.

Here's some sage advise I was once given for a similar problem:

"Who said you had to drive? Buy a bike, walk, thumb for a ride. For electricity, buy solar panels or better yet, ruff it like our ancestors did or better yet, go visit the Amish and see how they do it. Believe me there are lots of communes where people live off nothing but “Mother Earth”. Even saw a special on it. To me it just seems like you prefer the convenience but don’t want to pay the price. You want to gripe and complain how bad it is, yet you don’t actually want to DO anything to change it. If more people who felt like you did actually did something well things would change."

Brian:

How sad! It is great to raise children to think for themselves and to have compassion for their beliefs. Though I am apparently much more conservative than you, I did not raise my children to hate. I do not hate Bill Clinton or Hillary even though I abhor the behavior of Clinton in the whitehouse. I certainly do not agree with Hillary even though she seems to be a better senator than first lady! I think she would make a lousy president, no matter how smart she might be.

The last thing this country needs is parents raising children to hate! You do a great diservice to your daughter and to society to raise a child who will no doubt become a angry polarized adult! A liberal, nose ring, pink/green hair, current version of a hippy of the 60's is not helpful to our childrens maturity! They polarize and become acceptable to a small group of loners in our society. It is not likely that she picked up hating Bush on her own! It is a reflection of your attitudes and it is sorry on your part to use here to express you views.

Stand up and be counted for your own views, not your daughters!

Thank you for understanding Mr. P. But it is now out of my system, so no more hijacking letters!

JDR: Aww but here is where there is a difference between your gripe and mine: Your gripe was against a PRIVATE company (who is in the business to make money) and you were wanting the government to get involved. Mine was about our elected GOVERNMENT who is suppose to be looking out for me.

But have no fear, I try to send as less money to Raliegh as I can. I shop in VA, get gas in VA and buy cigarettes in VA. Oh and the reason I was so mad as it was my own stupid fault, I try not to send my money until the very last moment so the government gets no extra days interest on it, and since I didn't know about the Oct 1 deadline I am now suppose to pay the extra money. However, I did only send in the $20 I was billed for, we shall see if I get my tag!

Oh and one last point JDR, I originally posted to thank the democrats in this blog for basically voting for tax increases. But I will admit as soon as I wrote it I knew you would be posting my last remarks! Thanks for not disappointing.

Trish:

(to make sure I an not further disappointing you ... )

My gripe was not really a gripe - just a statement of fact. The price of oil is 3 bucks a gallon here, 25 cents a gallon in Venezuela, and 7 bucks a gallon in Europe. There is nothing I can do about it - I'm over a barrel was what I said - it was both a play on words and the statement of a fact, short of getting on a bicycle until some great manufacturing company builds a plant within walking distance of my house.

Where did say I wanted the government to get involved? I am very consistant in asking the government to only get involved in limiting large companies - Public or Private - simply because they are in the exclusive business of making money without regards to the you or me or our children.

I'm not worried about most small companies; small companies in general make America Great).

That is a very clear and important distinction.

In fact - for the most part I continuously argue for the government to get un-involved (except where companies are raping and plundering). Here is a recent example:

I am outraged that the continued give-aways of your and my tax dollars - such as the recent "Energy Bill" and the pending "refinery" bill, both giving your tax dollars ond mine to corporations making record profits.

To "dump" environmental regulations only takes jobs away from today's engineering / manufacturing companies that design and build the needed equipment, and then puts on your and my children the financial burden for clean up of the mess they have and will create.

I have and will continue to write my congress-people about these matters.

What's changed in the past 5 years - from 6 Trillion to 8 Trillion? The amount of debt our kids will carry - I think you are too good a mom to want that for your kids - so while you are certainly "just" in satirically thanking the democrats for voting in tax increases, I do hope are equally satirical in thanking the rebublicans for voting in tax increases.

To fault both would be closer to a "fair and balanced" critism. Of course, Delay would argue "There is no Pork ... "

Seems this group of blogs has morphed into a referendum on North Carolina State issues and the President and a lot of other vegetable soup issues-perhaps all important in their own right.

Though I think N.C. is under bad leadership and headed in the wrong direction, this column started out, I thought, regarding a lively debate regarding "Cronism", Ms. Miers, and selection of candidates to the Supreme Court.

I for one, would like to see more discussion as to why Ms. Miers is or is not an adequate candidate when compared to previous candidates who have been confirmed. For the conservatives or liberals to just say she has no record, in my opinion, is a mute point which does not justify her current battering. Regarding "smarts", I do not know how smart she is supposed to be, but is that everything? How does she compare with the others setting on the court-less roberts and O'connor- we know they are smart for better or worse!

I would like those history buffs and learned members of the community to post some of the pro's and cons of the performance of the other current justices. I know about Souter. What about Ginsberg, Thomas and the others?

Lets put tags, and N.C. issues in a different blog!

Hey Shippy, the links that I posted for Hayes will answer a lot of your questions on how good or bad justices turned out. Some were good, some great and a couple dismal failures who resigned rather than serve in ignorance and shame. I beleive FDR nominated and had confirmed a justice who he had little knowledge about and regreted it his entire life. He also nominated on who he had known for years and felt he would be a help to some of his programs, it turned out that the man despised FDR and his New Deal and along with the other 4 Horseman did all they could do to stop FDR. So I suppose no one knows how a justice will act until they do so.

Whoever said it was the conservative Christian right rather than the democrats arguing about Miers' nomination is right on the money. According to the pro-lifers (or pro controllers) Bush promised them he would nominate a conservative. Now they feel he has betrayed them because Miers is not conservative enough to guarantee them Row vs Wade will be overturned.

IMO for any president to nominate a close personal friend, an employee serving in a personal capacity or a business acquaintance who has made a large donation to his political party smacks too much of cronyism to me. It is screaming "pay back" rather than qualified or deserving.

But, hey, Clarence Thomas was a sex offender and was still appointed. Seems as if the qualifications for a SC nominee do not have to be very stringent nor does one have to be very deserving.

Shippy
For me not having experience is not a mute point and I will explain in a minute. First as history shows there are no sure things that the person selected with experience will prove to be competent and vote on issues as expected, just ask Eisenhower if you could. And as I told MrP I was a little more than suprised to see so many on the SC who didnt have such experience and by the way MRP I have started to read some of those links.

My position here is based on a simple foundation. In theory at least judges must put aside their own beliefs when hearing case before them. Lawyers look at how to twist the laws to best serve their clients and I would include advisors in this as well. How a judge and lawyer/advisor look at the law is very different and in my opinion we need people on the bench with judge experience. Again there have been bad SC justices who were judges and you may ask then where is the difference bad is bad and good is good? Probably in the end none but it is something I have a hard time accepting.

Though I dont hold the SC to be perfect or make decisions I always agree with I still hold the SC with high respect as one of the critical foundations in our country which means I dont see it as a place for an untested judge to get his wings so to speak.

And I will even go out a dangerous limb here and would even add that though a president has the right to select who he wants there should be some restriction forbidding him from selecting someone who works for him or was extremely active in getting him elected. The SC nominee is about our country not about payback to supporters.

Hayes, as you read the links I posted you will find that most SC justices either were good friends of, had at one time worked for or worked for another president in the same party, of the president who nominated them. It's a fact of the creature we call govenment,it is as it is, and as it has been so shall it be.
The original decision makers who decided to make the appointment for life was in hopes that it would perhaps soften some of the partisinship, which in most part is has done over the history of the court.