The Official "Pick the Next SCOTUS Nominee" FYM Thread - Page 4 - 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, 02:27 PM   #46
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:34 AM
Oops, Irvine beat me to it.
__________________

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


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 02:27 PM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:34 PM
If those who are disappointed with the appointment got their way, you'd be posting in opposition for different reasons.

Cronyism is appointment of the unqualified due to political connections. Many from both sides of the isle have suggested that a non-judge be appointed. I guess qualifications will only be met by the standard talking point litmus tests.

Frankly, the cynicism in me suggests that the "right wing disappointment" will only subdue the usual left wing outrage. If she appears centrist, then the appointment will proceed without the usual political drama.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 02:29 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep on 09-28-2005 at 05:58 PM -
Harriet Miers

seems like a poor choice.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 02:33 PM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Cronyism is appointment of the unqualified due to political connections.
you nailed it there !

in his remarks

the President said

"She is well-suited"


and not

"well-qualified"
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 02:40 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:34 PM
What, then, would you consider base qualifications for a Justice?


It seems far easier to say she misses than to say where she misses.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:01 PM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:34 PM
Roberts has qualifications and would have been on many lists for SCOTUS.

Miers would not be on any other list than W’s because of his close association with her.

He has had hundreds of conversations with her over the years. He once described her as a Pitt Bull in size six shoes. Bush, Cheney know her philosophy.



Cronyism determined her selection.
No doubt, there will be cases before the court that involve the Executive, WOT, unlawful combatants, etc.

He got his selection in the vein of Scalia, Thomas. She will be like Thomas and just follow Scalia in a 3 vote bloc.



Hatch claims he chose Ginsberg from a list Clinton had.
He was against Bruce Babbitt Senator from Colorado and settled for Ginsberg.
Harry Reid has done the same with Miers,

She will be confirmed.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:06 PM   #52
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,420
Local Time: 01:34 AM
well i did overhear a report on abc this morning where she was quoted as saying that W is a "genius." that will certainly get a rise out of a lot of people...

chuckie schumer and teddy boy will certainly get their big girl panties in a bunch that w. shockingly enough nominated a gun toting conservitive as opposed to a tree hugging liberal, but based on comments such as these...

Quote:
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."
... i'm guessing there will be only minimal resistance.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:07 PM   #53
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If those who are disappointed with the appointment got their way, you'd be posting in opposition for different reasons.


i am not opposing the appointment.

i am using the appointment to elucidate, once again, the myriad ways in which this president is a national embarassment.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:07 PM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Roberts has qualifications and would have been on many lists for SCOTUS.

Miers would not be on any other list than W’s because of his close association with her.

He has had hundreds of conversations with her over the years. He once described her as a Pitt Bull in size six shoes. Bush, Cheney know her philosophy.



Cronyism determined her selection.
No doubt, there will be cases before the court that involve the Executive, WOT, unlawful combatants, etc.

He got his selection in the vein of Scalia, Thomas. She will be like Thomas and just follow Scalia in a 3 vote bloc.



Hatch claims he chose Ginsberg and Souter from a list Clinton had.
He was against Bruce Babbitt Senator from Colorado and settled for Ginsberg and Souter.

Harry Reid has done the same with Miers,

She will be confirmed.
She made Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's list. In fact, he suggested that she be nominated. I guess the Democratic leader is part of the "cronyism".

But, to my original question, what are the base qualifications for a Justice???
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:33 PM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:34 PM
Quote:
Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the SCOTUS. I'm appalled:

She's 60. There were lots of highly qualified younger candidates out there who would have sat on the court for decades.
She has no judicial experience.
She has no public track record of proven conservative judicial values (what happened to Bush's 2000 promise to appoint people in the old of Scalia and Thomas?). How do we know she won't be another Souter? or Kennedy?
She's a Bush crony, which is an unfortunate choice for an administration that has been fairly charged with excessive cronyism (anybody remember ex-FEMA head Mike Brown?).
Her resume pales in comparison to those of some of the other leading candidates.
Why is the leader of a party that supposedly about merit and against affirmative action making an appointment that can only be explained as an affirmative action choice?
And if Bush was bound and determined to make an affirmative action choice, why not go with a more experienced and qualified woman like Edith Jones or minority like Emilio Garza?
This appointment reeks of cronyism, which along with prideful arrogance seems to be the besetting sin of the Bush presidency. At this point, I see no reason - none, nada, zilch - for conservatives who care about the courts to lift a finger to support this candidate.

Update: What he said, with bells on:

Only minutes after Bush appeared at the White House Monday to announce the nomination, Manuel Miranda, a conservative strategist and former aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist issued a scathing statement: "The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas, who had been the president's lawyer. The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it."

right wingers crying CRONYISM


Reid settled as did Hatch on Ginsberg

lesser evil prevails for politicians
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:42 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader




But, to my original question, what are the base qualifications for a Justice???


any and all who attacked Roberts never said appointment was based on personal relationship with W

his qualifications were unchallanged

Mier's only qualification is her relationship with W

it is cronyism

the fact that all sides mention this
with an administration that is rampant with it is very troubling.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:55 PM   #57
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:34 AM
Um.

Has anyone considered the fact that this could be a decoy?

Nominate someone (a woman, no less) whose qualifications are an x quantity, if not especially scary, and get the Dems all riled up over having a candidate with no proven track record.

Rescind the candidtae and put up someone with a nice, long, thorough paper trail...that of a hard-line right-winger.

Brilliant, really.

My opinion is that the Dems should cut their losses.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:59 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
any and all who attacked Roberts never said appointment was based on personal relationship with W

his qualifications were unchallanged

Mier's only qualification is her relationship with W

it is cronyism

the fact that all sides mention this
with an administration that is rampant with it is very troubling.
Not only have you not answered the question, you dismiss a distinguished legal career to focus on your talking point.

I guess a White House Counsel could never be nominated with out the accusation of cronyism.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 04:01 PM   #59
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,420
Local Time: 01:34 AM
reid thought she was a great choice up until he found out that his fellow dem's did not agree.

cronyism? it's all cronyism, it's all bullshit.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 04:17 PM   #60
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
But, to my original question, what are the base qualifications for a Justice???

I would think that the person needs to be a lawyer, and I think many people would have preferred a judge.
__________________

__________________
verte76 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 01:34 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