Lounge of Tomorrow - Harriet Miers

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Daily Grind (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=18)

- - Harriet Miers (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=2161)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007415

Quote:

What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

"Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade.

"I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

If these "Preachers" are Preaching Politics WHY ARE THEY TAX EXEMPT?

Has her nomination been withdrawn yet?

Wasington Post article

Quote:

Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers's response to the committee's request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to "the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause" as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.

"There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation -- which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies -- with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.

I don't think judicial experience is required for a good justice. I would ask that they have the constitution pretty much committed to memory (it really isn't that long). And it isn't as if this were a question she answered years ago when she couldn't imagine possibly being on the Supreme Court. This was a question she answered now as part of the confirmation process.

I really do think the president should have wide latitude and congressional deference to pick appointments, even to the Supreme Court. But she just doesn't seem to meet any reasonable minimum standards.

Breaking news from CNN - Miers withdraws nomination
!!!!

haha - Bush "reluctantly" accepts her request for her nomination to be withdrawn. Now that's funny. I think it's probably closer to "after intense pressure from Bush and his political handlers, Miers decided to allow Bush to save a bit of face."

All I can say is thank God. Roberts - even with little track record, obvious a brilliant man. Miers - I still have no idea what could have possessed Bush to make such a poor pick. NO ONE supported her - no lefties, no righties, not even most moderates. She was an attrocious and embarrassing pick, and I sure as hell hope he does a bit better with the next one. OK, there is no way he couldn't do better.

So now I'm wondering if it's going to be one of the Browns (Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Brown Clement) or Gonzales.

I'm betting it's male. While I don't think gender should be requirement, it does annoy me that this will be used as "proof" that there weren't any qualified women.

What did you think of the Browns, listed by GC? I would have considered either of them qualified - certainly much more so than Miers. Hell - my 12 year old daughter might be more qualified than Miers, so I guess that isn't saying much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

So now I'm wondering if it's going to be one of the Browns (Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Brown Clement) or Gonzales.

How about Julie Brown? I love her!

You know, in one respect, this is a pity. We're missing a really great opportunity for a truly terrifying halloween mask.

Donna

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Brown I (JR) has a resume closer to what I would expect -- experience in private practice and government, I believe a stint in academia, and experience as a judge. However, she's also noted for being more libertarian than conservative, and thus may not be to the GOP's liking.

Brown II (E) also has a resume that would indicate she holds the type of experience necessary to qualify for the position - many years in private practice, followed by a number of years in the federal courts. Although she doesn't appear to have written many decisions, I would expect her to be more palatable to the GOP.