Commissar Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court WASHINGTON - Under withering attack from conservatives, President Bush abandoned his push to put loyalist Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court and promised a quick replacement Thursday. Democrats accused him of bowing to the "radical right wing of the Republican Party." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Drabek Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 What happened to "Stick to yer guns" Georgie? I guess it's okay to admit a mistake as long as your base says it's a mistake. baby, take off your beret everyone's a critic and most people are DJs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted October 27, 2005 Author Share Posted October 27, 2005 Actually, I think this is pretty horrible. I don't think she even remotely deserved to be nominated, but now he's not going to be able to throw up anyone who doesn't believe the Consitution is only right where it agrees with the Old Testament. We're going to get some ultracon who'll camp out on an associate justice seat for the next forty years. I'd start preparing for the Supreme Court to mandate that Father Knows Best reruns be aired during what used to be primetime programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowstrider Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Thank God! Honestly, I try to not reveal my person philosophy much on the boards (though it would not be difficult to disern), but this is possibly the biggest blunder of the second term, and its just getting started! Aside from the fact that dubya has been disastrous for the country, we're now faced with the reality that his incompetent policy will be responsible for at least 2 seats on the supreme court. Time will certainly tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThaiBinh Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 What was wrong with her? Was it just that she was a crony from the Whitehouse? "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowstrider Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Essentially. She was never a judge, had no experience on the bench. Was by no means a legality scholar. Basically she was a lawyer, who Bush had known for 10 years, and that makes her an ideal choice for the highest court in our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julianw Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Now that I think of it, Bush being the first president appointed by the court actually shaped our nation's course for at least a few decades. Quite remarkable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted October 28, 2005 Author Share Posted October 28, 2005 Essentially. She was never a judge, had no experience on the bench. Was by no means a legality scholar. Basically she was a lawyer, who Bush had known for 10 years, and that makes her an ideal choice for the highest court in our country. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I still insist she would've been better than whoever we're likely to end up with. Keep in mind this was pressure from ultracons, not pressure from the moderates and left. Well, the latter two groups certainly disagreed, but Bush doesn't really pay attention to them, anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the next nominee suggests implementing Klan hoods as the standard headware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf16 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Essentially. She was never a judge, had no experience on the bench. Was by no means a legality scholar. Basically she was a lawyer, who Bush had known for 10 years, and that makes her an ideal choice for the highest court in our country. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I still insist she would've been better than whoever we're likely to end up with. Keep in mind this was pressure from ultracons, not pressure from the moderates and left. Well, the latter two groups certainly disagreed, but Bush doesn't really pay attention to them, anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the next nominee suggests implementing Klan hoods as the standard headware. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm in agreement. This certainly doesn't bode well for basic freedoms...or....you know....thinking for oneself. I had thought that some of nature's journeymen had made men and not made them well, for they imitated humanity so abominably. - Book of Counted Sorrows 'Cause I won't know the man that kills me and I don't know these men I kill but we all wind up on the same side 'cause ain't none of us doin' god's will. - Everlast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Drabek Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 It was a mistake picking her, precisely because she lacked the qualifications. But that lack of qualifications (and through that, confidence) might have led to her toeing the line drawn by greater judges - which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned, but the conservative base wants someone who has the cojones to break legal precedent. Now that's something that even the most conservative appointees have yet to do. Once you're on the Supreme Court, you don't have to worry about re-election, or riling up the base. All you gotta do is uphold the Constitution - and it doesn't really matter what the other branches want you to do. Checks and balances, baby. Nobody's gonna overturn Roe v. Wade. I also think it's a little funny that Stubborn George bowed so quickly to the will of "the people" in this instance. (When I say "the people" I essentially mean "his people" of course) Dance, puppet, dance. baby, take off your beret everyone's a critic and most people are DJs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 What happened is that they got a nose count on Republican senators, who had not been particularly impressed with her based on early meetings and questionaire responses. The outllook wasn't good, so they manufactured the release-of-documents issue as an excuse to save face and allow her to step aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 It is either egregious arrogance or ignorance to have someone who has never demonstrated any inclination, aptitude or ingenuity wrt the US constitution to suddenly be given a 15% vote on interpreting it for common law. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 "Aside from the fact that dubya has been disastrous for the country, we're now faced with the reality that his incompetent policy will be responsible for at least 2 seats on the supreme court." ss is worried 'bout Court & country based on bush nominees? roberts, whatever else you may think, is highly qualified based on any objective measure we seen put forward. what incompetence did you see with choosing roberts? in any event, what is the qualifications for being a J? thurgood marshall were on the supreme court, but he were never a judge nor were he ever a constitutional scholar. liberals loved him, no? how 'bout earl warren? folks who not like the damned conservatives probably gots a protrait of earl tucked under their pillow... and earl were the most improbable liberal Justice ever. heck, he were largely responsible for the japanese internment camps in california during ww2 and yet he turns out to be one of the staunchest opponents of segregation on Court? personally, we not care 'bout the politics of a J as long as they is smarty, articulate, and consistent... but we had no idea where miers stood on any issue.... which, we suppose, were part of her original appeal to bush. nobody could pull up a past opinion or article she wrote to kill her... or so the thinking went. btw, some buffoons seem to think too much o' the liberal v. conservative dividing line. most o' those legal scholar types do not think in such terms. is the reason why ignorant peoples gets so surprised when they sees some conservative Justice supporting flag burning or somesuch. you want qualified? bork were qualified. bork were so damned qualified... HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted October 28, 2005 Author Share Posted October 28, 2005 "Aside from the fact that dubya has been disastrous for the country, we're now faced with the reality that his incompetent policy will be responsible for at least 2 seats on the supreme court." ss is worried 'bout Court & country based on bush nominees? roberts, whatever else you may think, is highly qualified based on any objective measure we seen put forward. what incompetence did you see with choosing roberts? in any event, what is the qualifications for being a J? thurgood marshall were on the supreme court, but he were never a judge nor were he ever a constitutional scholar. liberals loved him, no? how 'bout earl warren? folks who not like the damned conservatives probably gots a protrait of earl tucked under their pillow... and earl were the most improbable liberal Justice ever. heck, he were largely responsible for the japanese internment camps in california during ww2 and yet he turns out to be one of the staunchest opponents of segregation on Court? personally, we not care 'bout the politics of a J as long as they is smarty, articulate, and consistent... but we had no idea where miers stood on any issue.... which, we suppose, were part of her original appeal to bush. nobody could pull up a past opinion or article she wrote to kill her... or so the thinking went. btw, some buffoons seem to think too much o' the liberal v. conservative dividing line. most o' those legal scholar types do not think in such terms. is the reason why ignorant peoples gets so surprised when they sees some conservative Justice supporting flag burning or somesuch. you want qualified? bork were qualified. bork were so damned qualified... HA! Good Fun! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Marshall's a bit of a red herring. I mean, sure, Michael Jordan didn't play high school basketball, but that doesn't mean colleges should hand out scholarships to every aspiring basketball player who doesn't make the cut at West Central High. There are people with truly exceptional abilities in certain areas, but I think we can all agree that Miers doesn't fit that description. She just...I don't know. I'm sure she's a perfectly kind woman, but I just didn't sense a vibrant intellect at work. Certainly not the sort that you'd want sitting on the highest court in the land. Like so much with politics these days, Supreme Court Justice nominees are increasingly resembling the triumph of mediocrity more than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Actually, I believe the neo-cons are not gunning for a hardline neo-christian fascist for the Supreme Court (well, that's not their primary goal, anyway); more that they are aghast at the completely un-Republican behaviour of their President. To wit, I read an accountant's audit of the cost of Dubya's spending so far, not including the Hurricane clean-ups, and (in adjusted dollars) he was already deeper in red ink than JBJ and his now infamous guns AND butter opening gambit. So, Here we have a Republican that has blown the surplus (that was ironically earned by the Democrats) AND burnt a hole in the federal treasury larger than any in history in an attempt to bring in socialist reforms that a democrat would blanch at, whilst fighting a elective war that now has no clear evidential support ... And meanwhile Tony Blair is doing a better Margaret Thatcher impersonation than anyone in the Conservative Party could even dream of ... Marshall's a bit of a red herring. I mean, sure, Michael Jordan didn't play high school basketball, but that doesn't mean colleges should hand out scholarships to every aspiring basketball player who doesn't make the cut at West Central High. There are people with truly exceptional abilities in certain areas, but I think we can all agree that Miers doesn't fit that description. She just...I don't know. I'm sure she's a perfectly kind woman, but I just didn't sense a vibrant intellect at work. Certainly not the sort that you'd want sitting on the highest court in the land. Like so much with politics these days, Supreme Court Justice nominees are increasingly resembling the triumph of mediocrity more than anything else. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have to agree with that as well, after all, who was it that said: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. "? ^_^ OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 (edited) Marshall's a bit of a red herring. I mean, sure, Michael Jordan didn't play high school basketball, but that doesn't mean colleges should hand out scholarships to every aspiring basketball player who doesn't make the cut at West Central High.actually, he did, but not till his senior year. There are people with truly exceptional abilities in certain areas, but I think we can all agree that Miers doesn't fit that description.i don't think we can agree on that at all. that's the problem. nobody knows. I'm sure she's a perfectly kind woman, but I just didn't sense a vibrant intellect at work.? based on what? she's conservative so she must be dumb? there's not really enough evidence to make a case either way. Certainly not the sort that you'd want sitting on the highest court in the land. Like so much with politics these days, Supreme Court Justice nominees are increasingly resembling the triumph of mediocrity more than anything else. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> as gromnir noted, roberts ain't no slouch. bork is probably one of the brightest legal minds of our century. his nomination fiasco was a shame. btw, i do agree he dropped the ball on her nomination anyway. though not a specific requirement (you don't even need to be a lawyer AFAIK), i think a bit more exposure to the bench is a good idea. taks Edited October 29, 2005 by taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 (edited) where on earth did com come up with the notion that mj did not play high school basketball? michael were a mcdonalds all-american his senior year. the story 'bout him being cut from his VARSITY team as a sophmore is maybe what com is confusing. jordan did actually play varsity as a jr. in any event, there has been more than a few supreme court justices who were not judges previous to being chosen for the Court, including JOHN Marshall, the father o' constitutional law in this nation. oh, and thurgood were hardly the MJ of the legal world. thurgood were a very good lawyer who were having the right politics at the right time... but he surely weren't no genius type. HA! Good Fun! Edited October 29, 2005 by Gromnir "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted October 29, 2005 Author Share Posted October 29, 2005 (edited) based on what? she's conservative so she must be dumb? there's not really enough evidence to make a case either way. Not at all. From what little I was actually capable of reading on her, she sounded like a perfectly capable, workmanlike lawyer - but nothing that hard work and dilligence wouldn't have gotten any other lawyer in the nation. You're a conservative, and I wouldn't consider you dumb - misguided, sure, but not dumb. as gromnir noted, roberts ain't no slouch. bork is probably one of the brightest legal minds of our century. his nomination fiasco was a shame. btw, i do agree he dropped the ball on her nomination anyway. though not a specific requirement (you don't even need to be a lawyer AFAIK), i think a bit more exposure to the bench is a good idea. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Roberts would be a fine choice, if his testimony to the Senate truly reflects his judicial philosophy. I suppose time will tell. If he was simply toeing a line to get his invitation aboard, then things will be different. As it stands now, though, I have no real problem with him. Edited October 29, 2005 by Commissar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted October 29, 2005 Author Share Posted October 29, 2005 where on earth did com come up with the notion that mj did not play high school basketball? michael were a mcdonalds all-american his senior year. the story 'bout him being cut from his VARSITY team as a sophmore is maybe what com is confusing. jordan did actually play varsity as a jr. in any event, there has been more than a few supreme court justices who were not judges previous to being chosen for the Court, including JOHN Marshall, the father o' constitutional law in this nation. oh, and thurgood were hardly the MJ of the legal world. thurgood were a very good lawyer who were having the right politics at the right time... but he surely weren't no genius type. HA! Good Fun! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> See? This is what happens when you use anecdotal evidence. In my defense, I don't follow basketball, and've just always heard that story. Mea culpa. Right man at the right time, or else simply the man of the hour in terms of abilities...either way, is anyone seriously making the argument that Miers would've fit into either of those categories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 hardly a red herring neither... as there is more than just a couple Justices who were not judges previous to getting on the Court... and we rarely sees the liberal folks who bemoan miers lack o' experience as a judge bring up earl warren or thurgood marshall as examples... wonder why. HA! as we noted above, we woulda' liked to have had some notion of miers qualifications, whether it had been scholarly works or judicial decisions... but she had no such r "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 ps we could list all the Justices who were not judges previous to being selected for the Court, but that would be a really long list... 'least 1/3 of all Justices. HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted October 29, 2005 Author Share Posted October 29, 2005 nevertheless, the way some folks complain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowstrider Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 Firstly, I should point out I am registered and vote Republican (at least most the time). Secondly, its not the woman's politics that disturb me. It is President Bush's croney-ism, and the fact that on the questionaires the Senate Judiciary Commitee sent her were returned with one word answers and responses which revealed a lack of knowledge on constitutional law. It wasn't solely the lack of judicial experience, it was the combination of all the factors (croney, lack of experience and lack of knowledge). As for Roberts, he is a fine judge and I can't think of a better choice than he off-hand, but its not as if I follow the career of judges/lawyers. I can't recall the name of the lawyer (I think his name is Moore, but I can't recall) who was against the Court's ruling on the 2000 election on the basis of state's rights. I know that could probably be dozens of men but its 5am as I write this and I'm dead tired. Anyway, I know that Bush was considering him and did a little background on him and thought he'd be an excellent candidate; certainly much moreso than a croney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julianw Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 Isn't Miers ancient history already? I doubt many people are even going to remember her full name in one month. (I already don't.) Have any new nominees surfaced yet? I guess a more conservative one must be in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 nevertheless, the way some folks complain "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now