Harriet Miers
 

Bush Taps Harriet Miers for High Court
Bush went on to say, "Yeah, she's never been a judge before but we'll learn her."
:D

Conservatives are not so pleased-

Link

I don't know enough yet to have any opinion-

Well, having zero bench history to base my opinion on, I'm going to have to make a purely superficial assessment of her...



Okay, I'm frightened.

Is that a Tribble on her forhead?

She is a bit on the scary side.

I am concerned about this selection, and have some difficulty understanding it.

First of all, if everyone thought there was little to no paper trail for Roberts and therefore he could not be judged properly in committee or the Senate, just wait until she gets to the hearings. AS legal counsel to the President, is it priviledged? Or is she legal counsel to the office, making her accountable to the people, not Bush as an individual? I seem to recall some case related to this during the Clinton administration, but don't recall.

I would suppose her legal history in Texas may shed some light on her, but considering she contributed to Clinton/Gore, I would suspect she has had some changes in her outlook since she is one of - if not the most - inner of Bushes inner circle of advisors.

So this brings me to my concern. I don't have much in common with Harry Reid (senate minority leader), so I wonder why he asked the President to consider her. I would figure that Bush must know her very well, but why nominate someone with no judicial experience whatsoever? Two different options come to my mind.

One, Bush wants no big fight. Why? I doubt if it is polling numbers. Has he lost political resolve?

Second, as he knows and trusts her very well, obviously, does he believe she shares his Constitutional philosophy?

I will be interested to learn more about her.

I heard this morning (can't find a cite yet) that she did a lot of pro-bono work for Exodus, the Christian group that believes that they can cure homosexuals. That doesn't sit too well with me. I can't help seeing the same cronyism here either, whether Harry Reid is for her or not. I have heard people say that she has remarked on numerous times that George Bush is one the most brilliant men she has ever met and that she firmly supports him. That concerns me. She apparently is entirely in his corner and I don't think for a minute that this nomination isn't very well calculated. I think that her and Roberts would remove any balance that the court once had.

I think there were many better candidates he could have chosen- once more I am forced to consider that he is wimping out.

*sigh* what I would not give for a clear message from the President- hmmm.....

Again, I don't think balance should ever be a consideration. Ginsberg and Breyer replaced much more conservative Blackmun and White (who was really more libertarian than conservative), and balance was never a concern during their nominations. If I were in a feistier mood right now, I would suggest that is because balance is not a ocnern when moving toward the left - only if there is a possible move to the right.

The issue, as always, is if she has the background and is qualified to make rulings on the Constitution. Before anyone asks me, I really don't know how to make that determination with her, being that she has no record and all her current work may be priviledged.

I've been fielding this issue all morning. :)
I have no opinion on her yet but:
This is from the Human Rights Campaign's website.
Source
Her Exodus Ministry is not the homophobic 'change you to straight' camp that's out there.

IT'S ANOTHER CRONIE!!!.... WILL BUSHIE EVER LEARN????

Cronyism is everywhere in our country.
I think it's one of the big things weakening it.

Miers may be a crony. But after her lifetime appointment, she needn't be any more. Right? Who knows?

Something I just thought of.

I think the media really wanted the 2 appointments to be a frenzy like like the appointments of Thomas or Bork. It wasn't that way for Roberts and I don't think it's going to be that way for Miers.

I laugh at that. Stupid mainstream media.
:D

WTF?

There are things you say in jest to your cornies and then there are things you actually say that get quoted. Learn the difference, George!


And, she's never been a judge before? This is the SUPREME COURT. Maybe we have a long history of appointing successful supreme court judges that have no experience. Who knows. But, it just seems wrong.

I think that line was a bit o' embellishment by Mr. Cricket.

Sorry, NA. GD's right. It was just my attempt at some John Stewartness.
:D

lol!

Well, you "had" me. I think it is probably frightening that I actually thought Georgie WOULD use that phrase.

I knew it wasn't a direct quote. It was too articulate.
:D

Well, first she needs to be confirmed. I'm not sure how I feel about this, too soon for me to form an opinon I guess.

I have to concur with Ghoulish Delight's superficial assessment, scary, indeed!

Donna

Well, im sure we will all be able to rest well knowing all of Bushes and Cheneys big corporate pals will be well protected for years to come under this court. So much for protcting the little guy.

Like the little guy is protected from the government now?

I think Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens - the 4 "left leaning members - were 4 of the 5 votes (along with Kennedy) who voted to allow the government to take private property from one person and give it to another under eminent domain.

Don't tell me the court is protecting the little. It isn't the responsibility of the court to do so anyway. It is their responsibility to rule on Constitutionality of cases presented.

I do not have the direct quote, but Roberts made the perfect answer when asked by...Schumer, I think it was....about protecting the "little guy". He said if the Constitution says the little guy is right, then the little guy will win. If the Constitution says the big guy should win, then the big guy will win.

I stand corrected. Thanks, GC. :)

Should be fun to watch whatever happens.

That far right nominee I was expecting has not materialized. The far right nominee the far right base was expecting has not materialized. I'm kind of happy about it. They're definitely not. Bush didn't throw the far right that nominee they think they're due. Bush sold out his far right base. Will they continue to carry water for Bush after he's let them down again? What about after the indictments start rolling in? Time will tell.

And now with Reid and several other dems coming out in support of this nominee... it just gets curiouser and curiouser.

As Bush carefully pointed out in his nominating speech, 35 past Supreme Court justices had no prior judicial experience before being confirmed to the high court, including the recently-deceased Chief Justice William Renquist.

Otherwise, I would agree that - on its face - zero time on the bench would automatically disqualify you for consideration to serve on the Supreme Court. Well, at least Miers' experience makes just-confirmed Justice Roberts 2-year tenure as a federal judge look like a wealth of judicial experience suitable to catapult him to Chief Justice of the Supremes.


But yeah, this is cronyism of the worst and laziest kind ... particularly troubling after the Michael Brown fiasco which, in turn, led to a stinging indictment in last week's Time Magazine of the other incompetent crony department heads that Bush has filled the federal government with.


Oh, and anyone who thinks of George Bush as one of the most brilliant men they've ever known is not qualified to water my lawn.

Could I pee on it, though? :)

Of Course not. The Little guy always gets mowed down by a Wal-Mart. But by appointing Cronies now to the Supreme Court, Bush/Cheney have protected their own very nicely it seems.

Again, not the responsibility of the Court. I'm more worried about the government mowing down the little guy than I am business. I don't know of any business that can take my property away without the say of the government. The current court just ruled saying it can take your land and give it to someone else if they see fit.

I don't have to do business with Walmart, or Microsoft, or any big business. I have to do business with the government.

Conservatives are getting P.O.ed?....Hmmm....she might be ok.....lol

Hmmm. Ms. Miers may be challenged by the conservatives for this one...
Source

Any kind of extreme thinking upsets me.
Extreme left, extreme right, extreme gay rights, extreme pro-life, extreme pro-choice...

Since I did the research for use elsewhere I'll repost it here, a list of 20th Century Supreme Court justices with zero time on the bench when they were appointed. There are some pretty big names on the list (including Brandeis who hadn't even ever been in public service before).

Cronyism on the court isn't exactly new, either. Earl Warren essentially earned his nomination by throwing the 1952 Republican nomination to Dwight Eisenhower instead of Robert A. Taft. As an interesting aside, Warren was later promised "the next seat on the Supreme Court" because it was assumed that associate justice Felix Frankfurter would be kicking the bucket any day time now. And then Chief Justice Fred Vinson suffered a heart attack. Eisenhower didn't think the original offer included the Chief Justice chair but when Warren cabled him saying, essentially "thank you for the nomination" he stuck to his word and gave it to him.

In doing the research for the list below, one thing stuck out at me: how the confirmation process changed. Up into the 1960s most supreme court nominations were approved within two weeks of the nomination being made and several were confirmed the day they were nominated. Not saying that is good or appropriate, it is just an interesting change.

Personally, I am not pleased with this pick. I don't care if a nominee has judicial experience (or even that they are a practiced lawyer) but they need to have some record indicating a high level of intellectual thought and accomplishment. It is essentially a brain job with a lot of navel gazing. I want to be confident that even if I disagree with them they're not exhausted keeping up with the plot twists on Alias.

Can't say that I'm confident of that.

William H. Moody - city solicitor, district attorney, 4 terms in house of representatives, Secretary of the Navy (was on bench for only four years).

James Clark McReynolds - professor of law at Vanderbilt, assistan U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Attorney General

Louis D. Brandeis - entire career prior to nomination was in private practice; founded Harvard Law Review

Harlan Fiske Stone - private practice, faculty Columbia Law, U.S. Attorney General

George Sutherland - Utah state senate, two terms in U.S. House of Reprentatives, two terms in U.S. Senate, U.S. Consul to the Hague.

Pierce Butler - assistant county attorney, county attorney, private practice, regent University of Minnesota

Charles Evans Hughes - private practice, faculty of Cornell Law, governor of New York, resigned court to run for president and was later appointed chief justice.

Owen J. Roberts - private practice, assistant district attorney, deputy attorney general, special United States attorney (investigating Harding administration), private practice.

Stanley F. Reed - Kentucky General Assembly, private practice, counsel to Federal Farm Board, counsel of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Solicitor General

Felix Frankfurter - Assistant U.S. attorney, Bureau of Insular Affairs, faculty of Harvard Law, assistant Secretary of War, chairman of the War Labor Policies Board

William O. Douglas - school teacher, private practice, faculty at Columbia Law and Yale Law, Securities and Exchange Commission chairman

Earl Warren - deputy district attorney, district attorney, governor of California

James F. Byrnes - district attorney, 14 terms in U.S. House of Representatives, two terms in U.S. Senate

Rober H. Jackson - private practice, assistant general counsel in the IRS, assistant U.S. attorney general, Solicitor General, U.S. Attorney General

Harold H. Burton - corporate lawyer, private practice, one term in Ohio House of Representatives, mayor of Cleveland, U.S. Senate

Tom C. Clark - private practice, district attorney (Dallas), various positions in the Department of Justice up to Attorney General (resigned court when son was named Attorney General).

Byron R. White - private practice, deputy U.S. Attorney General

Arthur J. Goldberg - division head in OSS, counsel to CIO and United Steelworkers, Secretary of Labor (resigned court to become ambassador to U.N.)

Abe Fortas - staff jobs in SEC and PWA, undersecretary of Interior, private practice

Lewis F. Powell, Jr. - private practice, president of the American Bar Association, member of LBJ's crime commission.

William H. Rehnquist - private practice, assistant attorney general

Mick Jagger on Monday night dedicated 'Back Of My Hand' to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers during DC Rolling Stones concert...

Troubles Coming, I can read it like the back of my hand, I see misery, and paranoia, I can read it like the back of my hand...

(Really quite a nice Blues tune...)

Well Warren and Rehnquist made their marks for sure, But that FRANKFURTER, he created a muscle man in laboritory in the middle of the night, seduced 2 young Virgins, dressed everyone up in fishnets and underwear and ended up getting shot by a laser from some guy in Gold Lamee' who had thing for his own sister.

Press conference with Bush this morning. I swear, I hate listening to that man answer questions. But anyway, a couple things struck me as interesting and made me feel less than comfortable with the nomination.

First, he said she shares his judicial philosophy. I think it's no secret that I don't share his judicial philosophy, so that doesn't bode well in my book.

Secondly, he said that he picked her because he knew "her philosophy would be the same in 20 years." :rolleyes: That's a good thing? So she's a closed minded, stubborn, pig headed fool like you who will never learn from a mistake (of course, according to Bush, he never makes mistakes so there's nothing to learn from, right?), never grow, and mistakes her own beliefs as unchanging truths? Greeeaaaat. What a positive characteristic.

Besides, is that even true of someone who is currently as close to Bush as anyone but contributed money to Al Gore in 1988?

He's just trying to placate those of us on the right who are less then thrilled GD.......I wouldn't worry too much.

Well, having a conservative judicial philosophy does not necessarily equal having a conservative political philosophy. Though I'm sure Bush believes her to have both.

In my opinion judicial philosphy is not something that should change over 20 years if it was well considered in the first place. It is not something that should be susceptible to the political vagaries of day-to-day life. Really the only reason to change your judicial philosphy is because you don't like the results achieved through its application and, in my opinion, a results oriented judiciary is a very bad thing and much of what has been wrong in the Supreme Court over the last 50 years (as much as I agree with most of their major political rulings, I think they were frequently decisions that more appropriately belonged in the legislative rather than judicial sphere).

But I still don't like this nomination.

Oh, I know. I'm specifically worried about her sharing Bush's judicial philosophy, which involves so-called "originalism".

What is your judicial philosophy, GD?

I am most certainly an "originalist". Many say that the founders could not have forseen all the technology and issues of modern day America, but I say that's crap. (Hopefully they wob't see the new right that the mayor of SF has just announced, which is WiFi - a right???? But that's a different story.) To suggest that the founders were that short sighted denies their brilliance.

They did forsee changes, which is exactly why they set up a limited federal government with every power not specifically given to the federal government to be left to the states. Let the states handle the micromanagement of law and the unforseen. I am not blind - we are so far from that now that we will never be back to it, but we need not erode it any farther.

On the contrary, scaeagles ... something must be done to restore that balance. It's over. Saying that we should not erode something that is competely gone is misguided. Right now, the federal government has 100% power over us all, and the judicial system, often the Supreme Court, is the only remaining bulwark against tyranny. It cannot simply operate as if it's 1781 with its head in the sand.

If we have gone beyond the Constitution in one way, we must not be saddled with its limits in other ways.

SCOTUS is not meant for quotas

The wording of the Constitution was selected very carefully. Excrutiatiningly carefully. So it's no acciden that it's so vague in many respects. I believe that vagueness was left in to allow the country to evolve its interpretation as the social consciousness evolved. Certainly there is enough other documentation to show that the framers had more specific views than ever made it into the wording. So why else would they leave that out? Would they really leave it vague and then demand that everything must follow strictly to such a vague document?

Here is a "proof" of my philosophy by induction (i.e., proving the opposite is not true). Let's assume that it's right to strictly follow the original document to the letter based on the specific goals of 1781. If that's the case, then all MEN were created equal. Woman should not be allowed the vote, blacks should not be counted as people, landowners should be offered more protection than other citizens.

Yes, it's a hyperbolic example, however, it only takes a single contradiction to disprove the premise. It is not a perfect document if taken as strict doctrine. The specifics aren't what are important. It's the spirit. The spirit of freedom, the spirit of equality. I believe the framers purposely left out the specifics, knowing that the extent of freedom that the people of their time would accept was NOT perfect freedom. It has allowed the scope of freedom and protection to expand with the public conscience. Strict constructionism equals stagnation.

I often wonder if I am a pessimist or a realist.....I would love for states rights to be restored to what it was meant to be. I just don't see it ever happening.

The federal government does hold all the cards. How does one take them back? I don't see that happening through any appointment to any court. Who the hell cares, in the grand and important scheme of things, if the phrase "under God" is in the pledge or not? Why is such minutia (sp?) taking up the important time of the highest courts in the land?

States rights IS the Constitution. When I see the SC making rulings that turn interstate commerce into something completely different than what the words mean - without even having to worry about original intent - I lose heart and figure the battle is over. I might have some hope, except the justice I regard most highly bought into that crap recently. Scalia, Scalia, Scalia - someone growing marijuana in their own home for private use, whether one agrees with doing it or not, has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and you know that. The SC is strengthening the feds more often than not.

When the SC rules that government can seize property from one private individual and give it to another, I lose heart.

When justices believe that looking to foreign law is acceptable to justify their positions and make rulings on our Constitution, I lose heart. As Roberts so absolutely brilliantly put it, it's like surveying a crowd for your friends. Some are out there, and you are certain to find them if you look long enough.

I could go on and on with so many things that make me lose heart. Sigh.

Absolutely not. This is why there is an amendment process. Why add an amendment process if they did not think the rules and mores of society would change?

If something in the Constitution does not stand up to the test of time or social reform, then it can be changed. It is not an easy process, nor should it be. This means that it is not changed easily - if it were easy, than we would have a flag burning amendment (which I oppose, btw).

But to change the meaning of the words as a justice, or to look to foreign law for interpretation, is to eliminate it altogether.

There is no living, breathing document except through the amendment process.

I don't have any problem with the Constitution as a living document and much of that does come through intentional vagueness.

I also believe that over time the judiciary has usurped much of the authority of the legislative branch through a desire not to interpret law as it relates to the constitution but rather to provide justice and make moral decisions.

I disagree with Roe v. Wade for example, not because of what it instituted. I believe that abortion should be legal and freely available but for the Supreme Court to have created the right requires them dictating the answer to social questions rightfully handled through the democratic process.

Essentially, I think the court has increasingly decided that should is a synonym for must. This is increasingly true of the legislative branch as well, but at least they're the appropriate repository for most such decisions and can be overturned in less than a generation.

Steve: many would say that the only reason the federal government has 100% power of us is because of the Supreme Court's past complicitness in allowing it (mostly through the expansion of the Commerce Clause beyond all reasonable bounds).

I would prefer a much more small "c" conservative court. When society has so changed that the Supreme Court's rulings seem out of bounds then it will be a sign that it is time to amend it (I don't buy the "we shouldn't amend the consitution very much argument").

People are comparing her to another Bush Cronie, David Souter....Remember Him? Daddy's failed pick?....lol

Well, as least she is on record as in support of full civil rights for gays.

I'm hoping that pans out as being true. But these days, who knows?
:shrug:

(We need a shrug smilie.)

Okay then, Leo, what's your explanation for the obvious intentional vagueness of the wording? I can go ahead and start digging up documentation that shows far more definitive language being kicked around by the writers, personal writings that show far stricter personal beliefs than what made it in. And yet, what we have is a very vague document.

I'm not saying I don't agree that many court rulings have gone out of bounds, both in scope and in interpretation. However I don't see the solution to that being throwing out all room for adaptability. Reign it in, yes. Discard it, hardly.

:snap: :snap: amen and AMEN! :snap: :snap:

There's no going back.

The Fed is big and will continue to grow. The vagueries of the Constitution were put there because of the colonists' fears of government. Yet it is these very vagueries that allow it to push its boundaries. Once a step is made it usually can't be pushed back...especially these days.

Regarding this nominee....it's a sight better than worst case scenario, so you won't hear me scream about it - until she does something awful, that is.

Greg (sorry if it has two "g"s - I can never remember), I have never bought into the argument that the Constitution is vague or intentionally vague.

Perhaps the Preamble - "promote the general welfare", "secure the blessings of liberty", ...... those are open to interpretation, certainly, but they are describing why the Constitution is being written.

I see very clearly written passages on the powers given to each branch, the responsibilities of the feds, the rights of states and individuals, etc. Throw in the Bill of Rights, particularly the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the limitations on the government are quite clear.

What parts do you consider vague?

I think, rather, that certain groups that don't like parts of the Constitution have set about to make them vague. For example, look at the second amendment. It clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Well, some say, this doesn't mean ALL the people, just the people in the well-regulated militia. Even though "the people" in all other amendments means every citizen, they claim it does not here. Thus, in this case, intentional vagueness is manufactured and not a reality.

There is 'living, breathing', and then there is amending to the point of hyperventilation.:rolleyes:

Exactly, WB - there have only been 26 amendments, and none since 1971. Two amendments cancel each other out (passage and overturning of prohibition), so that leaves 24. There were 10 with the original document, leaving 14. 14 amendments over 217 or so years is not a bad rate.

The amendment process should be difficult.

It is a difficult process, and for that I'm thankful. It would interesting to dig up past proposals and see what didn't pass.

Heh, and that happens to be one that I don't find vague at all. Again, the wording was chosen very, very carefully. Why is the "militia" clause in there if what they meant was "all people"? It's unnecessary otherwise.

But my point isn't to debate individual interpretations, so lets drop that for a moment. But if you want examples of vagueries...

"Unreasonable searches and seizures" - define unreasonable

define "probable cause"

define "cruel and unusual". Must it truly be cruel AND unusual, or is that really an "or". Wouldn't the definition of what's "unusual" change with the times by nature?

define "speech"

The thing didn't come with a glossary.

Yes, some parts are very specific and have very carefully chose words so as to impart specific meaning. Others are pointedly NOT specific and open to interpretation. With the amount of effort put forth by, and the raw brilliance of, those that penned it, I have a hard time believing they did not know how imprecise that wording was.

Unfortunately, the constitution contains at least two vague instances and combined they cause most of the problems.

What does "commerce" mean and what does "due process" mean. Both are terms where changing the definitions completely changes the scope of the federal government. Since now anything can be defined as "commerce" even if it only has a secondary or tertiary economic effect (me eating grain I grow in my own back yard reduces my need to buy it elsewhere, and since some of the elsewhere'es are in other states the federal government can regulate me growing grain in my back yard as interstate commerce) the federal government can claim an almost unlimited authority.

That is a word the framers almost certaintly did not view as "vague" but it has become vague over time. So I say ammend the constitution and define "commerce." If we think free abortion on demand should be a human universal right, amend the consitution to say so. We don't need hundreds of amendments but more than 14 in 230 years would probably be appropriate.

As it is, when you treat the constitution as some arcane scroll in which you have to squint and find the subtle hidden meanings, it makes the constitution a political document rather than a founding document. Rather than looking to it for guidance you battle over the right to interpret it. Yes, amendment should be difficult, but it is only so extremely difficult because we lack the willpower to actually focus on it, preferring to just hedge our way through it and then bitch if someone hedges the other way.

wendy, there are only six amendments that have made it out of Congress and then failed to get ratified by the states:

1. An amendment dictating the size of the House of Representatives (it is good that it didn't pass because under its guidelines we'd have several thousand representatives now).

2. An amendment revoking the citizenship of anybody accepting a foreign title or office without permission of Congress (permission is already required but no punishment is mentioned).

3. An amendment to prevent Congress from outlawing slavery (essentially saying it is up to each state).

4. An amendment giving Congress authority to regulate child labor (under 18); they've since pretty much taken that authority through the commerce clause.

5. The Equal Rights Amendment. Essentially recognizing sex in the way race is in the 16th Amendment.

6. Washington DC Voting Rights. An amendment to give Washington, D.C., full representation in Congress.

1-4 are still technically alive and could still become part of the Constitution if more states ratify them (good to know that slavery is still an open issue, technically). 5 and 6 had expiry clauses and are long dead.

If those examples were in the body of the constitution, I would agree with you. However, they are all in the bill of rights. Why was the bill of rights established? It was to enumerate certain rights that belong to the people that the government shall never be permitted to infringe upon. The Constitution would not have been ratified without them.

Looking at the 9th Amendment, it is clear that the bill of rights is simply a starting point to appease the original signatories. The Constitution is a limitation on government, not something that grants rights to the people. Those rights are understood without having to be enumerated. The states simply wanted the bill of rights as a show of good faith that the government truly would not and could not stop the people from doing such things.

So I believe that the bill of rights should have as "liberal" an interpretation as possible, and were designed to be as such. So, while it is true that "unreasonable" is widely open to interpretation, I don't see that as a problem. Eminent domain, however, is not widely open to interpretation. Interstate commerce is clearly definable, and therefore also should not be open to interpretation.

So, to define speech, it is anything that can come out of my mouth. Then we have the "well, can I yell fire in a crowded theatre" arguments, which goes to public safety, etc, and that has been argued for all eternity.

I am upset when the bill of rights is NOT interpretted liberally. More along the lines of speech - campaign finance laws clearly violate my free speech. I now cannot get on TV and say anything negative about an incumbant 90 days prior to an election. What? That is a clear violation of the first amendment.

I think the body of the constitution is beyond clear in the limitations set upon the government, and that is the purpose of the document.

Harriet Miers =

I'm just not sure about her. Bush keeps referring to her "values". I fear she may be the wrong kind of conservative.

I was wondering if you could expand on that for me. Just curious.
:)

The wrong kind of conservative, IMHO, is how I would define most republican candidates these days. People who are big-government, Christian-right fundies imposing their "values" on the rest of us. If Bush likes her "values", it doesn't bode well for how she'd vote on anything to do with gay marriage or a woman's right to choose.

The "right kind of conservative", IMHO, would be one that thinks gov't should have less power, not more, to determine how we live our lives.

You can say all the lofty statements you like about interpreting what actually is or is not laid out in the Constitution, but interpretation is just that, and personal beliefs do figure at least somewhat into the process.

However, like everyone, I don't really know *anything* about her, so she may very well be perfect for the job, we just don't know.

I find it very, very suspect when Bush says that he doesn't know her stance on abortion. He knows her shoe size but hasn't cared to ask that question once in the last 10 years? Really?

I think she is going to have problems getting confirmed. I think Harry Ried is being polite and pleasant right now as he watches the objections grow from the right. He doesn't have to say a thing right now.

Then again, that brings little comfort.

Thanks. I was just curious.
:)

Wow. This was the top story on CNN.com just now. Interesting.

I'm withholding any comments until I am able to find out more about her. This probably means that I have to wait until the hearings, as there is very little paper out there from her.

I am a little more optimistic after hearing she may be gay friendly. But that goes away as I'm hearing more about her being pro-life. So, I'm not totally convinced yea or nay yet. Like you say, we need to hear more about her. But she may Roberts the whole ordeal and not answer anything.

GC- I will say that I am more concerned about her now after reading that article, mainly because of our own well publicised mayoral difficulties. I can't help but compare the two- he behaved in a similar manner. I'm probably way off base, but something just strikes me as very odd about the whole thing thus far.

Odd is right.

Someone who usually defines themselves as a "Christian Conservative" is often neither. Displaying very Unchristian like behavior, and fascist beliefs.

Ideally a justice would be able to distinguish between one's personal opinions on the merits of a position and determing whether a position is constitutional. A lack of documented rulings makes it difficult to determine how a candidate views the constitution and whether they are capable of making such distinctions.

Yeah....she sounds REAL "Gay Friendly"...

She seems to have one foot planted firmly on each side of an issue.......I wonder if Kerry would have nominated her;)

Basically, I guess she believes everyone should be treated equally in Prison.

Now there is something I never understood. Send gays to prison for having gay sex. Prison will fix them, everyone knows gay sex NEVER happens there.....lol.

I'm not sure. Kerry's not president. Nor is Clinton any more.

But Bush is:

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."(May 29, 2003)

"I recognize we didn't find the stockpiles [of weapons] we all thought were there." (Sept. 9, 2004)
President Bush

-----------

"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror... they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive." (Sept, 2002)

“We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th." (Sept, 2004)

-----------

On the 9/11 Commission he later authorized:

“Since it deals with such sensitive information, in my judgment, it's best for the ongoing war against terror that the investigation be done in the intelligence committee.” (May, 2002)

-----------

Same-sex marriage:

First he says it should be up to the individual states. Then he wants a Constitutional Amendment.

------------

Then there's what he said about the free trade issue, formation of the Dept of Homeland Security, nation building... yaddah yaddah yaddah

;)

Hey sleepy - remember, it's not OK to make jokes about things in the past regarding democrats. I've been chastized about that before, too.

;) ---C'mon, can't I even slam Bush without being accused of "bringing up Clinton?"

Oh, I forgot:

Life on Earth began;

6 Billion years ago according to Evolutionist;

6000 Years ago according to Creationist;

5 years ago according to Bush critics ;)

On the surface these two look like contradictons but when put in context they really are not.

Either we found them or we didnt.......Either He was linked to 9/11 or he wasnt... (We DIDN'T, and HE WASN'T) How are they not?

Mission Accomplished.

Bush’s Circular Logic on Miers --

During an interview this morning on “The Today Show,” President Bush touted Harriet Miers’ credentials:

"I would remind those, one, that Harriet is an extraordinarily accomplished woman who’s done a lot. As a matter of fact, she’s consistently ranked as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States."

Actually, The National Law Journal ranked Miers among “The Fifty Most Influential Women Lawyers.” The specific designation is significant, because National Law Journal selected her as one of the “most influential” because of Miers’ close, personal relationship with Bush. From the National Law Journal: Miers is #48

removed.

So, Bush is trying to Put Jesus in the Bench?....

No sir, don't like it.

Well, I would prefer Jesus on the bench, or any other government institution, then a religious fundamentalist acting in the name of Jesus on a misguided crusade.

Well, of course I would LOVE to have God Himself on the bench...BUT, God leaves us to our own in reality now doesn't he/she?

I prefer shim

I'm with you there.

Vote for Pedro

Pedro: Vote for me, and all your wildest dreams will come true.

Last night when I got in the car after class (cupcakes!) Ryan was listening to talk radio. I turned to the 24 hours news station, but before I did there was a little snippet on the Miers nomination and I suddenly had a little twinge of paranoia.

Bush was allegedly under a lot of pressure to nominate a women, including public comments from his wife and the outgoing justice.

The talk radio snippet suggested that the reason the current nominee is so unqualified is because Bush was specifically nominating a woman. The implication from the host (I have no idea who it was) was that this proves there were no qualifed female candidates and that Bush should just withdraw the nomination and hire a qualified man already.

Now the tinfoil hat portion of my brain is afraid that this was all a set up. That Bush nominated some kooky dame with Black Sabbath inspired eyeliner so that he can say, "gosh, I tried to nominate a women. Sorry!"

I'm not in favor of quotas, just making sure that all the qualified candidates were considered, including those who don't look like us or belong to our social clubs. I wouldn't say a retiring female justice has to be replaced by a woman any more than I would say a retiring male justice has to be replaced by a man. But nominating a not-so-qualified woman as proof that no qualified women exist -- that would be a low blow indeed.

I doubt that was the intention, but it worries me that it has inspired at least one kooky radio talk show host to insinuate that women aren't qualified to sit on the bench.

He should nominate me ;)

and I thought peer pressure ended at 30.......

guess not in politics....

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


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

Has her nomination been withdrawn yet?

Wasington Post article

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.

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

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.

Judge Downtown Julie Brown?

No, the funny Julie Brown. DTJB=the lame.