No word on new nominee?

[dr. freeze]

one of my favorites, Mr. Buchanan offers these thoughts which i wholeheartedly agree with:

Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day -- to name his personal lawyer.

In a decision deeply disheartening to those who invested such hopes in him, Bush may have tossed away his and our last chance to roll back the social revolution imposed upon us by our judicial dictatorship since the days of Earl Warren.

This is not to disparage Harriet Miers. From all accounts, she is a gracious lady who has spent decades in the law and served ably as Bush?s lawyer in Texas and, for a year, as White House counsel.

But her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent. She is not a brilliant jurist, indeed, has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers are hard-pressed to dig up an opinion. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum. Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered.

What commended her to the White House, in the phrase of the hour, is that she ?has no paper trail.? So far as one can see, this is Harriet Miers? principal qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[djv]

Was that not same for Roberts. Maybe this older gal gave Bush one of those Monica jobs.

 

[StevieD]

Now, now. The President has the right to nominate any one he wants. I expect to see my Conservative friends support her nomination. It could be worse, he could have promoted Brownie!

 

[kosar]

Yep the hard right will freak out because of her stance on Abortion.

Could you please point to any evidence on her stance on abortion? I don't think there is any.

The oinly thing i've seen on that is when the Texas Bar Association came out that their official position was 'pro-choice,' she called for a vote. If anything, that sounds like it *could be* the opposite of what you say, but probably was just that she wanted a vote before they came out with this, not some unilateral proclamation.

 

[djv]

Dam Bush out pushing her for second day in a row. She must be a lame choice if he needs to do this. And it was more for the right then left.

 

[Sun Tzu]

In most Judicial debates all folks want to discuss is the positions of the candiadte on the key issues. This of course should be completely irrelevant in the process, as one is not more or less qualified for the job because of their view on flag burning or abortion or anything else. If that were they case every non 9-0 vote should give rise to an impeachment proceeding.

The issue is supposed to be whether the candidate is "qualifed." Bork was, Thuegood Marshall was and so on. This lady clearly is not.

 

[Palehose]

Could you please point to any evidence on her stance on abortion? I don't think there is any.

The oinly thing i've seen on that is when the Texas Bar Association came out that their official position was 'pro-choice,' she called for a vote. If anything, that sounds like it *could be* the opposite of what you say, but probably was just that she wanted a vote before they came out with this, not some unilateral proclamation.

Yes its the Texas Bar Association that she was president of when they made that stance that scares the Conservatives .

true Conservatives wont support this choice because Bush is throwing a bone to the Dems on this one and many Cons believe this was a great opportunity to tilt things to the right ...as it is if she gets in the courts will have moved from left to middle the Cons want it to move from left to right .

 

[Chadman]

Miers*is the wrong pick
Oct 4, 2005 - by George Will

WASHINGTON -- Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

**** It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's ``argument'' for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

**** He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their prepresidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections.

**** Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers' nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.



**** In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ``I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ``I do.''

**** It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

**** The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers' confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

**** Under the rubric of ``diversity'' -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can only be understood, empathized with and represented by a member of that group.

**** The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who ``legislate from the bench.''

**** Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, said Jordan, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, ``discriminated against'' because of her gender.

**** Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?

 

[IntenseOperator]

Never been a Judge.

From what I've heard off the radio, in the past, appointments usually didn't have much experience as judges. The appointing of actual judges to the court is something of recent history. Will try to look into this more if I find the time and motivation.

 

[kosar]

This is like bizarro world.

I saw two programs this morning, one on Fox and one on MSNBC.

On each they had on one Democrat guy and one Republican and they were debating the Miers nomination.

Also on each the debate was pretty heated with the Democrat arguing in favor of Miers and the Republican against.

The Republicans demanding that Miers reveal her stance on issues, even though they implored Roberts not to answer those same questions.

The Democrats saying that she had no duty to take positions at the hearings, even though they badgered Roberts to do the same.

What a bunch of clowns.

 

[dawgball]

Bizarro World -- That basically sums up all politics to me. Nice one.

 

[dr. freeze]

the only legitimate argument from Conservatives is that she has ZERO experience with Constitutional Law

I would think that this is more than enough to say that she is nowhere near adequate for the Supreme Court Bench...much less the best qualified

Its a horrible pick and I hope the true Conservatives unite and defeat her i dont care what her positions are

Give Bush a defeat and get him on track with some kind of agenda...he has turned into a very weak president...far from what most thought when he was running in 2000

but then who did we have to vote for? McCain?? :mj07: :mj07:

Horrible choices