No word on new nominee?
- Thread starter dawgball
- Start date
Looks like she has no buisness being a supreme court justice. Unless I'm missing something she has never been a ****ing judge?
I didn't scream about the first guy because he had qualifications out the ass but this is just stupid
I didn't scream about the first guy because he had qualifications out the ass but this is just stupid
rip away at the source.. I don't care. Im just showing the women has no qualifications.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/p...&en=4dab3da8ec1406ad&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Never been a Judge.
Not even at a dog show
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/p...&en=4dab3da8ec1406ad&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Never been a Judge.
Not even at a dog show
She looks like she belongs in a dog show Clem. LOL To my knowledge, Rehnquist had no prior experience on the bench either before he became a justice. I did see this from the AJC:
"Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was complimentary, issuing a statement that said he likes Miers and adding "the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."
"Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was complimentary, issuing a statement that said he likes Miers and adding "the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."
This pick is not going over very well with conservatives at all. Bill Kristal(editor of Weekly Standard) has already said that it is disappointing and considers this choice a 'capitulation.' He says the 6 conservatives he's talked to this morning agree with him.
I think Bush wanted to make a 'safe' choice, to avoid an all out battle, but this might backfire as it would not surprise me at all if she doesn't get the support from Republicans and she's not confirmed.
She is going to get bombarded from every direction at the hearings with everyone trying to pin her down on key issues, since she has virtually no record of having a stance on anything.
Aside from a few grandstanders like Kennedy and Biden, they pretty much gave Roberts a free pass. That will be far from the case with this one and it won't just be Democrats this time.
I think Bush wanted to make a 'safe' choice, to avoid an all out battle, but this might backfire as it would not surprise me at all if she doesn't get the support from Republicans and she's not confirmed.
She is going to get bombarded from every direction at the hearings with everyone trying to pin her down on key issues, since she has virtually no record of having a stance on anything.
Aside from a few grandstanders like Kennedy and Biden, they pretty much gave Roberts a free pass. That will be far from the case with this one and it won't just be Democrats this time.
I have not studied her experience, other than to hear that she has been somewhat of a trailblazer in Texas as far as women attorneys go. I have concerns with her being one of THE most important members of Bush's inner circle (for reasons we see illustrated every day) and I continue to be amazed by the brashness in which Bush rewards his cronies with primo positions of importance for our country.
Simple logic would seem to dictate (the party affiliation is irrelevant to job qualifications for this assessment) that to be a Supreme Court Justice, that you maybe should have some experience AS a judge. Personally, I would kind of expect that to be important for ANY position...that the person would have some experience in the field that pertains to the job.
The other concern I would have is a more political thing and gets more into my personal disgust and prejudice with the Bush administration. I think he is cunning, calculated and sneaky (or Rove is, or whomever) and the fact that she has nothing to examine, we will really not know how she would act as a justice. She evidently is a good attorney, and she is the most trusted legal counsel to this President.
Is that enough for you? For the Supreme Court? I don't know. I don't think it is for me, but I am really suspicious of this administration and probably would be suspicious of whoever Bush would nominate. Not sure if that's fair to this woman or not, but the examination of Bush's motivations can definitely be in play here. During questioning, she will be able to claim executive priviledge to nearly any probing question, and I'm not sure that is fair to any of us. I would feel the same way about that if it was a Democratic President and candidate, for that matter, in that area.
Simple logic would seem to dictate (the party affiliation is irrelevant to job qualifications for this assessment) that to be a Supreme Court Justice, that you maybe should have some experience AS a judge. Personally, I would kind of expect that to be important for ANY position...that the person would have some experience in the field that pertains to the job.
The other concern I would have is a more political thing and gets more into my personal disgust and prejudice with the Bush administration. I think he is cunning, calculated and sneaky (or Rove is, or whomever) and the fact that she has nothing to examine, we will really not know how she would act as a justice. She evidently is a good attorney, and she is the most trusted legal counsel to this President.
Is that enough for you? For the Supreme Court? I don't know. I don't think it is for me, but I am really suspicious of this administration and probably would be suspicious of whoever Bush would nominate. Not sure if that's fair to this woman or not, but the examination of Bush's motivations can definitely be in play here. During questioning, she will be able to claim executive priviledge to nearly any probing question, and I'm not sure that is fair to any of us. I would feel the same way about that if it was a Democratic President and candidate, for that matter, in that area.
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
What I never understood about Supreme Court justice nominees is people's fascination with their personal views. Isn't that the whole point of becoming a judge of the highest order? To set aside your views and only interpret the law as unbiased as possible?
If the ultra-conservatives/liberals are pissed, then I will probably be happy with this nomination. If Ted Kennedy opposes her, I may sign up to campaign for her.
I think this next few weeks will be interesting in this setting.
ABC had a guy on to get his opinion on her. About halfway through the interview, it came out that the guy was a "companion" of hers at one point. Couldn't they find a less biased person than that? At least someone with better taste.
If the ultra-conservatives/liberals are pissed, then I will probably be happy with this nomination. If Ted Kennedy opposes her, I may sign up to campaign for her.
I think this next few weeks will be interesting in this setting.
ABC had a guy on to get his opinion on her. About halfway through the interview, it came out that the guy was a "companion" of hers at one point. Couldn't they find a less biased person than that? At least someone with better taste.
Nosigar said:
Hard core righty Senator Grassley is all fired up and said he intends to ask many questions about how she would/will on specific, actual cases that they have coming up in this session. That isn't going to fly.
He also mentioned how disappointed he was that Souter didn't turn out to be someone who would help overturn Roe V. Wade and how he doesn't want to make that mistake again. At least he's not hiding his primary agenda, I guess.
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
I agree, kosar.
If someone is for overturning Roe v Wade, are they A) against a person's right to choose, B) for preservation of life, or C) believe that the original intent of the constitution was to protect human life at that stage?
I feel that the only reason a justice should be for/against it is choice C.
If someone is for overturning Roe v Wade, are they A) against a person's right to choose, B) for preservation of life, or C) believe that the original intent of the constitution was to protect human life at that stage?
I feel that the only reason a justice should be for/against it is choice C.
Well Jurys still out on this one ...pardon the bad Pun .
She seems to be fairly moderate ...she willl appear scary for both the hard right and the hard left ..... She made donations to both parties ....She gave to the Recount fund for Bush in 2000 $5k She has represented Bush in Court ....to me She's to Liberal .
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid dropped her name as a potential replacement to Ginsburg ...now thats scary . Over all she seems like she would play the middle , I would like to see a hardcore righty but thats just a dream after Roberts .
She seems to be fairly moderate ...she willl appear scary for both the hard right and the hard left ..... She made donations to both parties ....She gave to the Recount fund for Bush in 2000 $5k She has represented Bush in Court ....to me She's to Liberal .
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid dropped her name as a potential replacement to Ginsburg ...now thats scary . Over all she seems like she would play the middle , I would like to see a hardcore righty but thats just a dream after Roberts .
LUX said:
Let's be realistic here.
Probably has more to do with the White Sox making the playoffs.
I think that adding the element of surprise here should make for some frantic interest and some intense "Googling" by all parties. The early info coming out does seem rather surprising to me, that there are conservatives flipping out about Bush's nominee...that kind of response I would have thought would have been neutralized and controlled by the "dark side" (sorry, couldn't resist...) better.
The inner-circle qualification seems to be even deeper than first thought. I have read topics about her role in the Bush National Guard situation, and I would guess there will be much more to come.
I guess there is always the chance that Bush just did this yesterday -> :drinky: woke up today and said -> :wtf: and named the first person he saw this morning after asking her if she was "with him."
I guess I'm surprised that his nominee is bringing about so much conservative hand-wringing, at least initially. It's very interesting, if nothing else.
The inner-circle qualification seems to be even deeper than first thought. I have read topics about her role in the Bush National Guard situation, and I would guess there will be much more to come.
I guess there is always the chance that Bush just did this yesterday -> :drinky: woke up today and said -> :wtf: and named the first person he saw this morning after asking her if she was "with him."
I guess I'm surprised that his nominee is bringing about so much conservative hand-wringing, at least initially. It's very interesting, if nothing else.
LUX said:
Hey not bad ... I did get some !! No suprize though ....see here's the deal when your married with 3 kids its hard to find time for sex ....so I nipped that in the bud as soon as I seen it happening ..... Its part of the schedule :scared ... Ya I know scary aye ? Well thats the way it goes and better to have it scheduled than not get it at all .... Wednesday and Sunday are the best days of the week
Chadman said:
Yep the hard right will freak out because of her stance on Abortion . Personally I think we have it right on Abortion so no gripe from me on that issue .
Oh by the by Chadman the Idea...... of Her taking that seat came from none other than : Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
and that is a little scary .
and that is a little scary .
