This nomination has raised a tremendous amount of furor, and I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions and reasons.

By Sunny on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 10:18 am:

I did not like the fact that she has never been a judge. I will be honest and say that I don't know a whole lot about her or her position on certain issues, but her closeness to President Bush has me leaning more towards it being favoritism rather than based on qualifications.

It is a moot point now, though, as Harriet Miers has withdrawn herself from the nomination.

By Mommmie on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 10:49 am:

Next debate...

By Feona on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:03 am:

I didn't think she was qualified either. She was never a judge right?

By Emily7 on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:24 am:

Not all Supreme Court Justices have been Judges, it is not a qualification.

By Ginny~moderator on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:55 am:

Well, I am behind on the news - I didn't realize she had withdraw. This question is indeed moot.

And yes, not all Supreme Court nominees or justices have been judges, and it is not a requirement. In fact, a quick web search tells me that there are not very many constitutional requirements for appointment to the federal judiciary at any level (not even citizenship), though over time a number of understandings have developed - understandings that are sometimes ignored or treated as unimportant either by the President making the nomination, or the Senate, either in committe or in whole.

By Sunny on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 12:03 pm:

I believe it was just announced this morning she had withdrawn, so you're not too far behind.