All things considered, I don't see why her age is a limiting factor. She's 60, unmarried, without children. At this point, her life expectancy is likely well into her 80s, and she's not likely to step down to "spend more time with her family," which was O'Connor's rationale for stepping down at, what, 80?

However, it seems to me that most nominees to the nation's highest court without previous judicial experience have had other relevant experience - they've argued a number of cases before the Supreme Court, or they've served in the Solicitor General's Office, or they've had a distinguished legal academic career, or even that they've served with distinction in the public square, as a governor, senator, etc.

But with Miers, there's none of this. She's been an attorney, but I haven't heard that she's argued any important cases or even that she has much of a background in constitutional law. She's been on the Dallas City Council, but a Dallas reporter who covered her said that she didn't make much of an impression or take any momentous stands to speak of.

What exactly has this woman done that qualifies her for the Supreme Court? Its one thing for the Senate to reject a nominee who's ideologically extreme...would they reject a nominee who brings few obvious qualifications for the position?

I'm underwhelmed!

The Federal Judges and a Supreme Court Judge disobeyed that law. That is pure fact.

Are those Judges above the Law?

So, the nominee is Harriet Miers, who is without a doubt very qualified--just not for this job. As so often is the case, my views parallel Legal Fiction: I'll listen to what she has to say--but this sounds remarkably like a judicial version of Michae...

You will be delighted to learn that they write them themselves.

Anyway, I find nothing in them about recusal, so I guess the rule is 28 USC 455, which I don't find to have any check on a justice's own discretion. Normally one appeals a refusal to recuse to the next higher court, but that's not an option with the SCOTUS.

Do you mean to say that "The Court Has Rules"?

If so, would one rule be that Judges follow and obey the law.

I surely would hope so.

But then again, we all saw Federal Court Judges and Supreme Court Judge Kennedy violate the law passed by Congress in the Terry Scheivo case

And not one of these Judges were brought to Justice

IIRC, the sole judge of whether a justice must recuse herself, is that justice. Someone conversant with the Court's own rules might be able to correct me on this.

A friend asked me if Bush would betray the conservative movement with his next SCOTUS nominee. My response was, “I think he’ll do the right thing.” I’m eating my words a bit this morning.
Harriet Miers seems to be well quali...

It's been a while since I've weighed in on a political issue. I just haven't had the motivation. Admittedly, I've avoided paying too much attention to any of the foaming-at-the-mouth folks who are completely against this nom. I'm going to...

Harriet Miers gave cash contribution to the Democratic National Committee in 1988 and Gore campaign -- while Bush dad was running for president!... On a conference call this morning, former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie admitted Miers was democrat throug...

"Luttig backed parental-notification requirements for minors seeking abortion in 1998. Two years later, he voted to strike down a law barring ``partial-birth'' abortion, saying he was bound by a Supreme Court decision. In 2004, he voted to bar South Carolina from offering license plates that said ``Choose Life.''

"Abortion
Voted to deny rehearing in a case about South Carolina's decision to offer "choose life" license plates. Luttig's vote helped to uphold a ruling that the license-plate program violated the First Amendment because it did not offer pro-choice advocates a similar opportunity to make license plates that asserted their views. (Planned Parenthood of S.C. Inc. v. Rose, 2004) "

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/J._Michael_Luttig

Get over it, Lutting is a joke and couldn't have been trusted. He is not conservative.

As for McConnel,
"The McConnell who pleases liberals is the one who clerked for the late Justice William Brennan Jr., criticized the Court's 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore, and, before that, questioned whether President Clinton should be impeached.

He opposes the constitutional amendment against flag-burning and is against school prayer in coercive settings. McConnell has fought on and off the bench in favor of non-mainstream religions; he and Justice Antonin Scalia have dueled in print over McConnell's sharp criticism of Employment Division v. Smith, in which Scalia applied drug laws against a sect that used peyote in its ceremonies."

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1117789517125

In light of this, do you still want that moderate mainstream joker now? I never did. Quit calling these men conservative!

Hewitt's endorsement reads more like someone who drank the kool-aid than any sort of reasoned argument for.