Harriet Miers

Phoenix44 said:
I'm really thrilled about her. In fact, I think I'm going to join a dojo run by a white belt. And next time I have surgery, I want an intern to operate on me.
Click to expand...
at least those are related to the field!
 
Good video btw. I think the greatest concern for any staunch conservative individual is that she turns out to be like David Souter. David Souter is a conservative but he is not a staunch conservative and has been viewed as liberal by certain conservative groups. He is an excellent judge if you read his opinions, but he is not a hard line conservative and that doesnt sit well with a lot of people.
I personally, dont think she is qualified because she does not have the judicial experience, but I would be willing to bet that the biggest fear for some of the real right winged republicans is that she turns out to be like Souter. And thats why they will not back her up. As far as liberals go, I wouldnt be gloating about this nominee either, she may turn out to be a true conservative.
In any event I think it is a bad choice, yes she was the president of the Texas Bar and she may well be a great attorney, but there are a lot of great brilliant attorneys who never make it to county court judge. The judicial experience is a big factor for me, that is being able to interpret cases, having an idea of what you are deciding. These are issues that are going to affect 250 million Americans, and I for one dont feel that she is qualified for that job.
 
Turns out a number of S.C. judges lacked judicial experience...Marshall, Frankfurter, Rhenquist, Brandeis...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p01s03-usju.html

Miers schooling isn't particularly impressive. She went to Southern Methodist. She never practiced Constitutional law. She was a corporate litigator.

Gays are supporting her...isn't THAT interesting? I wonder if that's a psychological ploy to turn the Religious Right against Miers and Bush?


Regards,


Steve
 
The only 'qualifications' to become a Judge on the Supreme Court of the United States are that a) one is nominated by the President of the United States, and b) one serves with the 'Advice and Consent' of the United States Senate.

Ms. Miers has met the first qualification.

I expect that she will meet the second qualification.
 
It may happen that she's confirmed...but if so, it'll cause further damage to the Republican base.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3388326

Conservatives are increasingly unhappy with his performance. He's lost thirty percent of his Evangelical base since the election. Much of this because of Miers, but also because of his support for huge spending on Katrina reconstruction, immigration, etc.:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3388326

He's getting questions from news reporters like "Are you still a conservative?"




Regards,


Steve
 
hardheadjarhead said:
He's getting questions from news reporters like "Are you still a conservative?"
Click to expand...
The question works on the assumption President Bush is a conservative.

Looking at the actions taken in office, he has not been a conservative.

Conservatives attack taxes, but it does not follow that attacking taxes makes one a conservative. I believe conservatives have been willfully blind on this issue. The conservatives think they have a conservative in the White House despite the evidence against it (Medicare Perscription Drug Benefit - "No litmus test" - Federal Powers over State Powers).

Sorry for the thread gank.
 
We learned a lot about the quality of John Roberts legal mind when he appeared for confirmation. Perhaps we'll learn a lot about Meir's legal mind, or lack thereof as the case may be, when she appears before the Senate. If she's anywhere near as impressive as Roberts was (which I doubt) she'll have proven herself a good choice.

michaeledward said:
The question works on the assumption President Bush is a conservative.

Looking at the actions taken in office, he has not been a conservative.

Conservatives attack taxes, but it does not follow that attacking taxes makes one a conservative. I believe conservatives have been willfully blind on this issue. The conservatives think they have a conservative in the White House despite the evidence against it (Medicare Perscription Drug Benefit - "No litmus test" - Federal Powers over State Powers).

Sorry for the thread gank.
Click to expand...
Well, michael, you are correct. Bush has never been a conservative, he's always viewed himself as a moderate. Bush has always liked to think of himself as a uniter before he went to Washington. In Texas, Bush had a history of working in a bi-partisan manner with the Texas legislature, and was respected by Republican and Democrats alike.

Going to Washington was a rude awakening for the man, and I truly believe he has never given up the grim hope that maybe, just maybe, he could do something that wouldn't make half the country mad.

I believe Harriet Meirs was an attempt to appoint what appeared to be a moderate to the Court. Well, he half succeeded. The Democrats are happy....It's the conservatives that are mad.
 
michaeledward said:
The only 'qualifications' to become a Judge on the Supreme Court of the United States are that a) one is nominated by the President of the United States, and b) one serves with the 'Advice and Consent' of the United States Senate.

Ms. Miers has met the first qualification.

I expect that she will meet the second qualification.
Click to expand...
Although she meets those qualification, I don't think she would be the best person for the job. The reason being she has no experiance as a judge, there are far more qualified people.

But hey the president is the leader of our country, so I'll support but of course with suspicion;).
 
Kane said:
Although she meets those qualification, I don't think she would be the best person for the job. The reason being she has no experiance as a judge, there are far more qualified people.

But hey the president is the leader of our country, so I'll support but of course with suspicion.
Click to expand...
Ms. Miers has not yet met the second qualification listed; serving with the 'Advise and Consent' of the Senate. She has met the first qualification; having been nominated for the postion by the President.

The Constitutional qualifications are binary in nature. A person is qualified or not. There are not people who are 'more qualified'. There may be people with greater experience in a particular area or field, but experience is not a qualification for the position.

The argument could be made that there is 'gradation' of qualification in the second parameter; one hundred Senators participate in the Advice and Consent portion of a Supreme Court appointment. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts received the approval of approximately 80% of the Senators. A 'more qualified' person, it could be argued would receive a higher percentage of 'Yea's'.

The end result is that Chief Justice Roberts is 100% a Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, I find the 'Advice and Consent' a binary parameter.

As to whether Ms. Miers is the 'best person for the job' - a subjective decision - the President of the United States has unequivically stated the he believes she is accurate described with that phrase. What can we learn about him, from that statement?
 
Latest reports are the Ms. Miers 'qualifications', at least for President Bush, include her participation in a Evangelical Christian Church.


The Constitution of the United States specifically forbids any religious test for Federal positions.
 
This is a matter of the president's judgment...he can use whatever criteria he likes. I'm not so happy about it myself, but it's his choice. If sock color is how he chooses, that's his perogative.
 
The following comes from the G8 meeting in Canada; a few years back.

President George W. Bush said:
"We need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."
Click to expand...
It seems the President is keeping his word. A religious litmus test will be required to serve on the Supreme Court.
 
The San Fransisco Chronicle has a story today about Ms. Miers failure to pay property taxes on properties owned by her mother, but for which she was responsible through a 1995 power of attorney document.

This is a minor matter that will be interesting to watch as the splinter in the Republican base becomes more active as we approach the conference hearings.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/16/MNGJHF96591.DTL&feed=rss.news




Also, there are reports of a Evangelical Christian conference call, in which two prominent judges gave assurances to the attendees of the call that Ms. Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Mr. Dobson was reportedly on that conference call, as was Richard Land (another Miers supporter).

Watch for the attendees of this conference call to be summoned to appear before the Judiciary Committee's hearings.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007415
 
One very evident question, in my opinion, is how will Ms. Miers, if elevated to the bench, deal with any cases where the Bush Administration is a petitioner.

The impartiality of the nominee needs to be examined very closely. Can a person who claims that President Bush is 'cool' and 'brilliant' sit impartially before a case involving this person?

As the Karl Rove - Valerie Plame - I. Lewis Libby - WHIG (White House Iraq Group) Controversy / Con Job becomes more revealed in what many expect to be the final days of Mr. Fitzpatrick's investigation, the nominee takes on a new visage. It appears there will be several Supreme Court cases concerning the Bush Administration.

How Ms. Miers addresses this question is one to watch closely during the Judiciary hearings.
 
Ms. Miers has asked to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Wi-Fi...unalienable right...?

Previous Thread

New Orleans' Public Hospitals are Unsalvageable, Officials Say.

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top