Bush picks aide for Supreme Court - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-03-2005, 08:09 PM   #31
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
As I read this comment, I threw my hands over my head in disbelief. You've totally missed my point. The MAIN FACTORS should be CREDENTIALS and JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE.
Well maybe the "Laura, admirable when reserved, had to open her big fat mouth (as did O'Connor)" could have been thought out before written.

You know there were other women looked at, so your argument about only being gender is moot.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-03-2005, 08:11 PM   #32
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Section 8
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Well we're getting way off topic, but there are also many clauses about treatment of prisoners.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-03-2005, 08:16 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Well maybe the "Laura, admirable when reserved, had to open her big fat mouth (as did O'Connor)" could have been thought out before written.

You know there were other women looked at, so your argument about only being gender is moot.
If he wanted to, he could have appointed Janice Brown. Now we're both happy. Well, me anyways.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 08:51 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
As I read this comment, I threw my hands over my head in disbelief. You've totally missed my point. The MAIN FACTORS should be CREDENTIALS and JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE.
In other words, you would have preferred a judge?
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 08:54 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:08 PM
[Q]Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. [/Q]

Apparently the framers of the Constitution felt the checks and balances were enough to determine who was worthy.

I predict.....the system will work.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 09:00 PM   #36
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 787
Local Time: 11:08 AM
They also seemed to think it should be a he.
__________________
jay canseco is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 09:04 PM   #37
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 787
Local Time: 11:08 AM
The he being the president, obviously.
__________________
jay canseco is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 09:59 PM   #38
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by VertigoGal


sorry, I didn't see it anywhere.


it's the "pick the next SCOTUS" thread.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 10:03 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 01:08 PM
for some reason I haven't bothered to even open that thread for the past few days. I won't get into what I thought it was.

well this can be merged or whatever, sorry again guys.
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 11:06 PM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
[Q]Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. [/Q]

Apparently the framers of the Constitution felt the checks and balances were enough to determine who was worthy.

I predict.....the system will work.
It's been working for a long time
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 11:30 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by VertigoGal
for some reason I haven't bothered to even open that thread for the past few days. I won't get into what I thought it was.

well this can be merged or whatever, sorry again guys.
This nomination deserves its own thread IMHO
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-04-2005, 12:10 AM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:08 PM
Irvine has a friend:

[Q]The Nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court

Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted Oct 3, 2005

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.


What is depressing here is not what the nomination tells us of her, but what it tells us of the president who appointed her. For in selecting her, Bush capitulated to the diversity-mongers, used a critical Supreme Court seat to reward a crony, and revealed that he lacks the desire to engage the Senate in fierce combat to carry out his now-suspect commitment to remake the court in the image of Scalia and Thomas. In picking her, Bush ran from a fight. The conservative movement has been had -- and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush.

Choosing Miers, the president passed over outstanding judges and proven constitutionalists like Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit and Sam Alito of the 3rd. And if he could not take the heat from the First Lady, and had to name a woman, what was wrong with U.S. appellate court judges Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens and Edith Jones?

What must these jurists think today about their president today? How does Bush explain to his people why Brown, Owens and Jones were passed over for Miers?

Where was Karl Rove in all of this? Is he so distracted by the Valerie Plame investigation he could not warn the president against what he would be doing to his reputation and coalition?

Reshaping the Supreme Court is an issue that unites Republicans and conservatives And with his White House and party on the defensive for months over Cindy Sheehan and Katrina, Iraq and New Orleans, Delay and Frist, gas prices and immigration, here was the great opportunity to draw all together for a battle of philosophies, by throwing the gauntlet down to the Left, sending up the name of a Luttig, and declaring, “Go ahead and do your worst. We shall do our best.”

Do the Bushites not understand that “conservative judges” is one of those issues where the national majority is still with them?

What does it tell us that White House, in selling her to the party and press, is pointing out that Miers “has no paper trial.” What does that mean, other than that she is not a Rehnquist, a Bork, a Scalia or a Thomas?

Conservative cherish justices and judges who have paper trails. For that means these men and women have articulated and defended their convictions. They have written in magazines and law journals about what is wrong with the courts and how to make it right. They had stood up to the prevailing winds. They have argued for the Constitution as the firm and fixed document the Founding Fathers wrote, not some thing of wax.

A paper trail is the mark of a lawyer, a scholar or a judge who has shared the action and passion of his or her time, taken a stand on the great questions, accepted public abuse for articulating convictions.

Why is a judicial cipher like Harriet Miers to be preferred to a judicial conservative like Edith Jones?

One reason: Because the White House fears nominees “with a paper trail” will be rejected by the Senate, and this White House fears, above all else, losing. So, it has chosen not to fight.

Bush had a chance for greatness in remaking the Supreme Court, a chance to succeed where his Republican precedessors from Nixon to his father all failed. He instinctively recoiled from it. He blew it. His only hope now is that Harriet Miers, if confirmed, will not vote like the lady she replaced, or, worse, like his father’s choice who also had “no paper trail,” David Souter.
p[/Q]
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-04-2005, 10:10 AM   #43
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
[B]Irvine has a friend:


you misunderstand.

i have virtually no opinion on whether or not Miers will be a good judge. in fact, i'm willing to bet that she will uphold affirmative action and will have the good sense to realize that women aren't livestock and should be in control of when they do and do not get pregnant. her qualifications seem rather bland, at best.

to me, her nomination is indicative of the sheer cronyism of the Bush government -- yes, all presidents let their friends be ambassador to, say, Luxemborg, but this arrogant, insecure man child in the white house is on a whole other level.

i'm very happy the right is angry. maybe we'll see his ratings fall below 35% now that he's totally betrayed his base and let us know who Bush is really working for -- himself, and his small circle of friends. seriously, does he know more than 6 people? what a vanity project, what a massive overcompensation for being the son of a president who was a fuck-up (by *all* accounts) until 1994.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-04-2005, 11:25 AM   #44
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 06:08 PM
I'm sorry, but I threw up my hands in disbelief as well. IMO, I am also one to value EXPERIENCE and QUALIFICATIONS. It would not matter to me what her views were, even if I agreed with every single one.

Hell, if Bush was a Democrat and nominated BONO to the Court, I'd vote against him. Just b/c he has no experience. And if I had the opportunity, I would tell him so to his face (politiely of course.)

To see the NY TImes (that baistion of liberalsim) actually trying to to put a good spin on this was sickening....(Wanting to avoid conflict".)

How is he going to get consefvatives to vote for someone with no practical experience as a Federal judge? She is a political hack...more or less. He may as well nominate DeLay (in terms of being a member of the staff!)
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 10-04-2005, 11:31 AM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Teta040
I'm sorry, but I threw up my hands in disbelief as well. IMO, I am also one to value EXPERIENCE and QUALIFICATIONS. It would not matter to me what her views were, even if I agreed with every single one.

Hell, if Bush was a Democrat and nominated BONO to the Court, I'd vote against him. Just b/c he has no experience. And if I had the opportunity, I would tell him so to his face (politiely of course.)

To see the NY TImes (that baistion of liberalsim) actually trying to to put a good spin on this was sickening....(Wanting to avoid conflict".)

How is he going to get consefvatives to vote for someone with no practical experience as a Federal judge? She is a political hack...more or less. He may as well nominate DeLay (in terms of being a member of the staff!)




how dare you doubt our president? he has said he knows her heart and her character. remember when he looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul and said that it was good?

this is like that.

what more do you need?

in times like these, we need to trust our president. has his instinct ever led us astray?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com