Harriet Miers’ Experience

FOR Fred notes:

I saw a stat recently that sed nearly half of the supreme court justices throughout history (including Renquist) were not judges before taking the bench. I’ve even heard rumors that Bill Clinton is sniffing around for an appointment under the next democratic admin (and lets hope its the NEXT admin).
I’m not sure about this lady myself, but her lack of judicial experience is hardly unprecedented. Just proves my point that most folks in poltics (regardless, in this case, of right or left alignment) will reach for the nearest bat to pummel their opponent and worry about the hypocracy later (if at all.)

Lies, lies and damned statistics. It is true that many, indeed half of justices who served on the Supreme Court, did not work as judges previously. That doesn’t tell the whole story, however. Most of these non-judge justices served during the 19th century. Indeed, the trend during the 20th century has led to increasing experience requirements to serve on the highest court in the country, mirroring a general requirement in the employment sector towards increasing credentials: today’s BA is yesterday’s high school diploma, etc. Moreover, most of the justices cited as “inexperienced” by pro-Miers Republicans did have fairly impressive credentials. These included former senators and, in William Rehnquist’s case, a sitting deputy attorney general.

Miers’ experience doesn’t come close to the kind of resume justices have been expected to possess during the past few decades.

That said, the conservative revolt against Miers is a little strange. So Bush lied about guaranteeing an anti-Roe justice (even though seems about as pro-life as you can get short of having shot an abortion doctor herself). You didn’t seem to mind his lies when they worked towards your benefit–the tax cuts helping the economy, WMDs in Iraq, capturing Osama dead or alive, etc. Buy a rabid dog and eventually he’ll bite you too.