The Official "Pick the Next SCOTUS Nominee" FYM Thread - 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, 10:15 AM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Cause her qualifications don't matter at this point.


what qualifications would those be?

here's what David Frum -- a conservative if ever there was one -- has to say:

Quote:
I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But nobody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States. And there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or - and more importantly - that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left.
I am not saying that she is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have no [sic] good reason to believe either of these things. In other words, we are being asked by this president to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant.


still, i do like the fact that she's a 60 year old bachelorette ... ahem ...
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 10:19 AM   #32
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:36 AM
It concerns me that she's never been a judge. And she doesn't have the paper trail that Roberts has.

But...it is bad that I am, regardless, very pleased that Bush chose a woman?

I dunno...Miers seems okay but it also seems like other female judges out there might have been better qualified. Corrigan, Callahan, and Clement all come to mind.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 10:28 AM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pax
I dunno...Miers seems okay but it also seems like other female judges out there might have been better qualified. Corrigan, Callahan, and Clement all come to mind.


but qualifications don't matter; what matters is how loyal you are.

the WaPo says this today:

Quote:
Miers came with him to the White House in 2001 as staff secretary, the person who screens all the documents that cross the president's desk. She was promoted to deputy chief of staff before Bush named her counsel after his reelection in November. She replaced Alberto R. Gonzales, another longtime Bush confidant, who was elevated to attorney general.
and Matt Yglesias finds this David Frum quote:

Quote:
In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met.
she's also been a legal counsel to virtually ALL of Bush's potential scandals, especially his National Guard records. from a July 17, 2000 issue of Newsweek:

Quote:
The Bushies' concern began while he was running for a second term as governor. A hard-nosed Dallas lawyer named Harriet Miers was retained to investigate the issue; state records show Miers was paid $19,000 by the Bush gubernatorial campaign. She and other aides quickly identified a problem--rumors that Bush had help from his father in getting into the National Guard back in 1968. Ben Barnes, a prominent Texas Democrat and a former speaker of the House in the state legislature, told friends he used his influence to get George W a guard slot after receiving a request from Houston oilman Sid Adger. Barnes said Adger told him he was calling on behalf of the elder George Bush, then a Texas congressman. Both Bushes deny seeking any help from Barnes or Adger, who has since passed away. Concerned that Barnes might go public with his allegations, the Bush campaign sent Don Evans, a friend of W's, to hear Barnes's story. Barnes acknowledged that he hadn't actually spoken directly to Bush Sr. and had no documents to back up his story. As the Bush campaign saw it, that let both Bushes off the hook. And the National Guard question seemed under control.
basically, i have no idea if she'll be good or not. what her nomination demonstrates to me, again, is that Bush values loyalty and hero-worship more than any other qualities in his appointees -- from head of FEMA to Attorney General to SCOTUS to Karen freakin' Hughes as some sort of diplomatic-soccer-mom to the Middle East.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 10:30 AM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Cause her qualifications don't matter at this point.
I don't know enough about her to pass any judgment at this point, but not having been a judge before did raise an eyebrow...
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 11:38 AM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
what qualifications would those be?
Let's see. Making partner at a prominent law firm is quite an accomplishment.

But, wait. She became President of the law firm. A far greater accomplishment.

Add President of the Dallas Bar Association and Texas Bar Association and you have someone who is both talented and well respected.

These are great accomplishments for any person. To do this as a woman in "good ol' boy" Texas just adds to the accomplishment.


Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
still, i do like the fact that she's a 60 year old bachelorette ... ahem ...
What is your implication here?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 11:49 AM   #36
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,357
Local Time: 01:36 AM
considering that bush picked the nominee that the senate minority leader urged him to pick, i'm guessing there won't be much of a fight over her confirmation, much to the chagrin of chuckie schumer.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 12:25 PM   #37
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Let's see. Making partner at a prominent law firm is quite an accomplishment.

But, wait. She became President of the law firm. A far greater accomplishment.

Add President of the Dallas Bar Association and Texas Bar Association and you have someone who is both talented and well respected.

These are great accomplishments for any person. To do this as a woman in "good ol' boy" Texas just adds to the accomplishment.




she sounds like a fine lawyer. no question. but SCOTUS?

it seems to me as if her most distinguishing characteristic is her unshakable loyalty to Bush et al.

that, and lack of paper trail. and lack of judicial experience. and no experience arguing cases in front of the SCOTUS.

simply, as Frum has noted, there is nothing in here to place her at the forefront of lawyers in the United States (as opposed to Roberts).




Quote:
What is your implication here?


what do you think is my implication here?

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 12:29 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
what do you think is my implication here?

I think we should avoid putting words in each others mouths. I'd like you to be responsible for your statement.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 12:34 PM   #39
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I think we should avoid putting words in each others mouths. I'd like you to be responsible for your statement.


oh lighten up.

i'm being slightly humorous.

just what assumptions might one make about a 60 year old bachelorette?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 12:39 PM   #40
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,357
Local Time: 01:36 AM
she's still waiting for mr. right... get it? mr. right? i crack myself up...
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 12:48 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:36 AM
So, she's had a distinguished career. She's probably as qualified as anyone, even though she's never been a judge.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 12:55 PM   #42
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:36 AM
actually, verte, the right wing would disagree with you. witness, one, John Podhoretz, who writes for the right wing bible The National Review:

Quote:
: "Another reason for Bush not to pick ... Gonzales or Miers is this: One of the Democratic talking points that is getting some traction is the Crony Talking Point -- the idea that this presidency is made up of friends and friends of friends who all do business together and whose qualifications matter less than their connections to GWB. Since nobody on earth aside from Bush would actually consider Gonzales or Miers a suitable Supreme Court nominee, the appointment of either would smack precisely of the cronyism with which he is (in my view) being unfairly tarred. Bush would be giving his critics some very serious ammunition to use against him at a time when he can't afford to do such a thing."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_...ive.asp#077952
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 01:50 PM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:36 PM
One "right wing" writer has listed a Democratic talking point, not a thesis as to why Miers is a bad pick.

Miers primary credentials were gained completely separate from the Bush White House.

Cronyism is just at this point.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 02:19 PM   #44
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
One "right wing" writer has listed a Democratic talking point, not a thesis as to why Miers is a bad pick.

Miers primary credentials were gained completely separate from the Bush White House.

Cronyism is just at this point.


no way.

this is cronyism at it's most naked.

and it's not just one right wing writer -- it's a whole bunch of them, many of whom, to their credit, are dismanyed. like Bill Kirstol who, today, says he's "Disappionted, Depressed, and Demoralized":

Quote:
I'M DISAPPOINTED, depressed and demoralized.

I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.

I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/166quhvd.asp
and the Democrats are generally happy with the nomination -- she'll be a Souter!

my posts have nothing to do with her as a nominee, because we simply don't know much about her, and everything to do with the arrogance with which Bush operates.

and check out more disappointment on www.redstate.org

after Brownie and now this, do you really think charges of cronyism are baseless? what more do you need than Bill Kristol -- Iraq War apologist and unabashed optimist extraordinairre --what more do you need?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 02:26 PM   #45
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
One "right wing" writer has listed a Democratic talking point, not a thesis as to why Miers is a bad pick.

How about two?

Quote:
Trendsetter Bill Kristol says he's "disappointed, depressed, and demoralized," because "her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president." Right-wing loyalists at redstate.org are despondent over her campaign contributions to Democrats.


http://www.slate.com/id/2127371/
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax 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 01:36 AM.


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