Bush' new Supreme Court nominee

[betchatoo]

Interesting choice. I don't know enough about her yet to feel one way or another toward her nomination.


Bush taps White House counsel for court vacancy

By Mark Silva
Washington Bureau
Published October 3, 2005, 7:41 AM CDT

President Bush today nominated Harriet Ellen Miers, his White House general counsel and a close associate from Texas, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-051003miers,1,3601134.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[Secretariat]

GW seems enthralled with judges with no judicial experience. Don't know much yet about this lady except she's GW's counsel. For god's sake. More cronyism. Haven't they learned after Brownie and Allbaugh?

I expected him to pick a distinguised conservative judge with a record on the bench. Not someone without judicial experience who is serving him as White House Counsel. Does she have any ties to hte NYRA or International Arabian Horse Association?

Know little about her, but I'll bet she's from Texas.

[lsbets]

GW seems enthralled with judges with no judicial experience. Don't know much yet about this lady except she's GW's counsel. For god's sake. More cronyism. Haven't they learned after Brownie and Allbaugh?

I expected him to pick a distinguised conservative judge with a record on the bench. Not someone who is serving him as White House Counsel.

LOL - you are so predictable. Harry Reid suggested he consider her. She has a pretty distinguished legal career from what I have read so far, and it has been very common to choose justices from areas other than the bench so that there is a diversity of experience on the high court. There you go again, running your mouth off without a clue. I know nothing about her other than a quick read this morning, so judgement is withheld on my end. As it will be with most people, but I remember you blasting away at Roberts when he was first nominated. Typical. I thought you were going on vacation?

[Secretariat]

Harry Reid suggested he consider her. ... I thought you were going on vacation?

Well, I'm glad you take Harry Reid's suggestions to heart. Frankly, she appears unqualfied to me. btw..I did not rail on Roberts, I posted an article on questions about Roberts. Feel free to go back and look.

And thank you, I am going on vacation over the Columbus Day weekend.

[lsbets]

Personally I wouldn't trust Harry Reid with anything. I think he might have suggested her name to set up a fight. Wouldn't surprise me. After half the Dems voted for Roberts, the fundraising must have suffered, so they need a good court battle to bring the money in. Reid is as duplicitous as they come.

[JustRalph]

Once again Bush needs a foot stuck plain in his ass..............she gave money to Clinton and Gore for Christ's sake..........:mad:

[kenwoodallpromos]

Bush picked her because she has extremely conservative views but all her opinions are while teh mouthpiece for the whitehouse so they do not count!
Bush learned that very quickly from the last guy! :jump:

[hcap]

I agree with Sec. Cronyism in all the wrong places

Not only that, but so does Rich Lowry--National Review

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_02_corner-archive.asp#078320

“DEPLORABLE” Rich Lowry
Just talked to a very pro-Bush legal type who says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely. Her long history of activity with ABA is not encouraging from a conservative perspective--few conservatives would spend their time that way. In short, he says the pick is “deplorable.” There may be an element of venting here, but thought I'd pass along for what it's worth. It's certainly indicative of the mood right now...

And now the scary part from http://www.theleftcoaster.com/

She rose to her present position by her absolute devotion to George Bush. I mentioned last week that she told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. To flatter on such a scale a person must either be an unscrupulous dissembler, which Miers most certainly is not, or a natural follower. And natural followers do not belong on the Supreme Court of the United States.
--Former Bush speechwriter (“Axis of Evil”) David Frum this morning on his blog, before he mysteriously retracted the comments.

Two part scare
1-"she told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met."
2-Why did he retract this statement?

[GameTheory]

Maybe she's a sacrifice, and Bush does not expect her to get confirmed...

[Bobby]

Her nomination has to be a disappointment for mainstream conservatives. She's no SD OC. Rather she seems to be a fair-weather republican, changing her political views for personal gain. More of a DAvid Souter I think.

[46zilzal]

sacrificial lamb? now that is an interesting ploy.

[Suff]

Once again Bush needs a foot stuck plain in his ass..............she gave money to Clinton and Gore for Christ's sake..........:mad:

Even worse....Lloyd Benson! That's like giving to Mike Dukakis.:lol: :jump:

This could be...and I'm stretching here.... a deal to make other things go away.

Like an indictment on conspiracy to violate the espionage act...:eek:

Stretching guessing and speculating....

Can we get her in the "8 items or less" line and confirm her Tomorrow?:lol: :ThmbUp:

[hcap]

Nope David Frum did not retract his statement

http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/09292005.asp#077899

"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 served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions - or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect.

Frum is the "axis of evil" speechwriter.

[JustMissed]

Maybe she's a sacrifice, and Bush does not expect her to get confirmed...

Do you have any thoughts on who he might really want to put on the court?

JM

[GameTheory]

I would have expected Brown or McConnell, but Bush likes to be unpredictable I think. I'm sure he'll be happy if she is confirmed, but he'll still have some bullets in reserve if needed...

[ceejay]

she gave money to Clinton and Gore for Christ's sake..........:mad:
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php
I can't find any donations to Clinton, but she did give to Gore, in 1988 that is....

[Secretariat]

Amazing. I'm on the side of Republican conservatives disagreeing with Miers nomination while Isbets is siding with Harry Reid's choice. Wonders never cease.

As I said previously, I beleive she is unqualified. As the head of Harvard Law School stated, she shows no court cases dealing with large consitutional cases involving national issues. Most of her law experience is limited to one firm. As he said, it's surprising Bush did not appoint a conservative judge or attorney who has this kind of exposure because they're out there.

If one looked at her resume without her association to Bush they'd say she was vastly unqualified for the position. Cronyism strikes again.


Frankly, with Reid behind her, she will be confirmed unless Republicans vote against her, and I would be surprised to see that. Obviously, she will swing the court against Roe v Wade, but outside of that no one knows. What will Repubs do if Roe v. Wade is overturned. What national issue will then galvanize Evangelicals to go to the ballot box? Interesting dilemma. Especially since it would just then revert to a states issue of abortion as it was previously, and people will travel to blue states for abortion.

Frankly, that issue is small to me, although I am for privacy rights for either assisted suicide or abortion, but it isn't something that predominates my thinking like the destruction of the economy via masive deficits.

Rush doesn't like her, Isbets does, JR doesn't like her, Bush does. Things like this make it interesting to watch the Republican party.

[JustRalph]

Ok, the word of the day is Cronyism! The talking points have been everywhere from Katie Couric to the paceadvantage board. Damn those Dems get their emails out fast!

[lsbets]

Rush doesn't like her, Isbets does, JR doesn't like her, Bush does. Things like this make it interesting to watch the Republican party.

Who said I liked her? I said she appeared to have a distinguished career and that I didn't know enough about her to make a judgement. I think my exact words were judgement is withheld on my end. Sorry Sec, I am not a reactionary like you, I like to think things through before I come to a decision. The fact is you don't know anything about her either. I started to like her when I listened to Air America today and heard how upset they are by her pick - if the folks at Air America hate her, she can't be that bad, but I still haven't made up my mind.

[schweitz]

My opinion---Bush is continually underestimated and is about to get his second conservative Supreme Court nominee confirmed.

[PaceAdvantage]

Rush doesn't like her, Isbets does, JR doesn't like her, Bush does. Things like this make it interesting to watch the Republican party.

Is the 'scorecard' all that really matters to you?

[Secretariat]

Who said I liked her?

Which is it Isbets? You attack me for questioning her qualfications, and speak of her distingushed career, and Harry Reid's endorsement.

So which is it? Do you like the choice of her or not? I'm on record as agreeing with the likes of people like Limbaugh, and the head of the Law School at Harvard and disagreeing with Reid in not thinking she's a good choice? That isn't easy for me - on any account.

But since you want to straddle the fence and toss insults, feel free.

[lsbets]

You're on record? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Are you running for office now? Give me a break. I like to know some information before I make a decision.

[PaceAdvantage]

He is indeed on record. I've got it right here on my 'scorecard'

[Kreed]

Harriet E. Miers. I vote YES. I have 2 very important reasons for YES: #1,
The lady looks like the perfect grandma or aunt, someone whose look just
inspires doing the right thing; #2, The lady is a 100% authentic bling queen.
Did you see how much jewelry she totes? I counted Nine (9) pieces. She's
a shopper! And #3, less important, was the perfect cobalt blue suit she wore
over a lighter blue neck-high shirt. What a total improvement over Laura's dull
pret-a-porter.

[JustRalph]

Harriet E. Miers. I vote YES. I have 2 very important reasons for YES: #1,
The lady looks like the perfect grandma or aunt, someone whose look just
inspires doing the right thing; #2, The lady is a 100% authentic bling queen.
Did you see how much jewelry she totes? I counted Nine (9) pieces. She's
a shopper! And #3, less important, was the perfect cobalt blue suit she wore
over a lighter blue neck-high shirt. What a total improvement over Laura's dull
pret-a-porter.

Well.......that settles it then. I have forwarded this post to every member of the Senate.........that should just about settle it. .............

PA...... I am still looking for that icon?

[Secretariat]

Harriet E. Miers. I vote YES. I have 2 very important reasons for YES: #1,
The lady looks like the perfect grandma or aunt, someone whose look just
inspires doing the right thing; #2, The lady is a 100% authentic bling queen.
Did you see how much jewelry she totes? I counted Nine (9) pieces. She's
a shopper! And #3, less important, was the perfect cobalt blue suit she wore
over a lighter blue neck-high shirt. What a total improvement over Laura's dull
pret-a-porter.

lol..Kreed, she doesn't fit the Santorum mode of the values of a Republican woman. Never married, no chidren, a career vs. family woman, and a lawyer no less. However, I know what you mean by the jewelry. She was wearing a huge crucifix when introduced. Box should be quite happy with her nomination. I will give it to GW on this one. He's got Harry Reid agreeing with him, and members of the far right dismayed he didn't pick a Scalia type. Who knows maybe GW will try and switch parties before its all over?

[Bobby]

Never married, no chidren, a career vs. family woman, and a lawyer no less.

She kinda reminds me maybe of a closet feminist. But now she's just trumpheting Bush's views. She supported full gay rights and that was back in the late 80s in Dallas. She's not going to be a Sandra Day O'Conner, a moderate swing vote.

[Suff]

Well.......that settles it then. I have forwarded this post to every member of the Senate.........that should just about settle it. .............

PA...... I am still looking for that icon?

Hacket versus Dewine in Ohio.

And the hits just keep on comin......:jump:

[JustRalph]

Hacket versus Dewine in Ohio.

And the hits just keep on comin......:jump:

heard it on the radio this morning.............Dewine is an entrenched piece of crap........ I might just vote for Hacket............

[Tom]

This is scary....aren't SC Judges supposed to be impartial and defend the constitution?

What the heck does anyone's views on abortion have to do with that? They are not on the bench to makes laws, they are there to hold us all to a standard, not their opinoins of things. Being agaisnt abortion and pro-death penalty, my role in such cases, were I ever nominated (I am not holding my breath for W to call on me!) would be to evaluate a case in terms of the existing laws and the contitution, not my opinion of it. Rowe v Wade should be looked at in terms of legality, not morality.
The very idea of a conservative or liberal justice is appaling to me.

I was impressed with Roberts' answer about looking out for the little guy ( not THE Little Guy...:D ) and said if the little guy dserved to win, he would win in his courtroom, and if the big guy deserved to win, he would.
There is no room on the court for right or wrong - only is it legal.

Which is why I find the whole confirmation process so entertaining - watching the bunch of looney tunes senators trying to make themselves look intelligent while they look so stupid.

[JustRalph]

George Will gets it right.................check out this link. Very good stuff here

Miers is the wrong pick

http://www.townhall.com/images/contributors/will.gif Oct 4th

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html

~Snippet~

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.''

~end snippet~

[betchatoo]

George Will gets it right.................check out this link. Very good stuff here

[
I'll be damned. I find myself in complete ageement with George Will. Anybody notice 4 horseman riding around?

[Tom]

I'll be damned. I find myself in complete ageement with George Will. Anybody notice 4 horseman riding around?

I think this George is a ture conservative. W is something, but he is not a conservative. Will makes sense on a lot of issues...W on very few.

The 4 horsemen?
You mean 41, Clinton, 43, and Delay? :lol:

[Secretariat]

George Will gets it right.................check out this link. Very good stuff here

Miers is the wrong pick

[img]

Interesting. If I say Miers is unqualified compared to others i'm wrong, but when George Will says it he's right.

The truth is she lacks cases addressing constitutional law, has no judicial experience, and even the conservatives are calling her not the best choice.

As a Democrat I am in agreement with George Will. Frankly, if she is recalled I think we'll get a more conservative judge sent down, but I'd rather deal with that than someone who is put in simply because she's a woman, and close to the President's ear. The President after the Brown fiasco needs someone who doesn't smack of cronyism. btw..cronyism claims are not coming from the Left, but from the Right including Patrick Buchanan and a host of others.

If she's confirmed so be it. Roe v Wade will go and it'll go back to a states right issue. However, this woman's record on gay rights may very well lead to allowing gay marriage. I'm not so sure she isn't gay herself. Who knows?

[PaceAdvantage]

Interesting. If I say Miers is unqualified compared to others i'm wrong, but when George Will says it he's right.

That's because Will's was an informed opinion, not a knee-jerk "I'm the first one to post" opinion.

[Tom]

I'll tell you what...if BOTH the dems and the repubs don't like this gal,


I LUV HER!


Anyone disliked by both sides must have something on the ball.

I:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :p :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Kreed]

I cant overlook my 1st impression. Harriet Rocks. VOTE YES.

[betchatoo]

I'll tell you what...if BOTH the dems and the repubs don't like this gal,


I LUV HER!


Anyone disliked by both sides must have something on the ball.

I:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :p :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

You're in luck, Tom. She's single ;)

[ponyplayer]

Anybody ever hear of Chief Justice Earl Warren. I don't believe he was ever a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court.

[schweitz]

I believe there has been as many as 20 who made it to the Supreme Court without previously being a judge.

[Secretariat]

That's because Will's was an informed opinion, not a knee-jerk "I'm the first one to post" opinion.

lol...Will hasn't been informed about anything in over a decade...that includes baseball which I'll wager he never played...

btw..I was not the one who opened this thread. I simply stated she was unqualified compared to many potential candidates out there. Now that Will agrees it's still hard for you to face that I agree with a hard core conservative and am supporting the decision of the far right part of the conservative party on this issue.

Personally, Miers would be friendlier to Dems than that Scalia type of judge from New Jersey, but I beleive that you actually build a reputable resume on constitutional law, and aren't simply appointed because you know the President. We've seen the disaster at FEMA with the Brown/Allbaugh legacy. Enough of the cronyism as Pat Buchana says, "Bring on a judge (conservative or independent) who has actually made some decisions on constitutional law."

[hcap]

"She's never been a judge before...never served on the bench. This is part of President Bush's strategy of surrounding himself with people who are also in over their heads." --Jay Leno

:rolleyes:

[Lefty]

hcap, she couldn't do any worse than the wackos that said it's okay for a woman to murder her unborn baby and the husband's opinion doesn't count, and all under the guise of privacy for God's sake.
Bottom line, Bush is the Pres, he gets to pick.

[ljb]

hcap, she couldn't do any worse than the wackos that said it's okay for a woman to murder her unborn baby and the husband's opinion doesn't count, and all under the guise of privacy for God's sake.
Bottom line, Bush is the Pres, he gets to pick.
Lefty,
Does this mean you support the selection ? Many on the right don't like it.

[betchatoo]

hcap, she couldn't do any worse than the wackos that said it's okay for a woman to murder her unborn baby and the husband's opinion doesn't count, and all under the guise of privacy for God's sake.
Bottom line, Bush is the Pres, he gets to pick.

He gets to pick...with the Senate's approval. Big difference

[Lefty]

lbj, I support the man that made the selection. I don't care what everyone else thinks. As I've told you before, I form my own opinions. When Clinton named Ginsberg, the Repubs knew she was a stone liberal. But they supported her and the vote was something like 97-3, cause they respected Clinton's right to make sthe pick. Everyone should stand back and do the same with Bush.

[Suff]

l. When Clinton named Ginsberg, the Repubs knew she was a stone liberal. But they supported her and the vote was something like 97-3, cause they respected Clinton's right to make sthe pick. Everyone should stand back and do the same with Bush.

get your facts straight. Ginsburg was a consensus candidate.

Meaning , Clinton, with the Republican Leadership, selected Ginsburg in Oval office meetings. Ok?

And, for the Record, Scalia went in 98-0... and that was WITH a Democratic Majority Senate.

I support Harriet Miers. She has no Judicial experience but she did stay at a Holiday Inn express last night!..:D

[Lefty]

suff, facts are strght. She was a consensus candidate BECAUSE the REpubs looked past the fact she was an ACLU liberal and respected Clinton's right to make the pick. Didn't I say she was confirmed 97-3? It wsasn't because Repubs like libs, tell you that.

[lsbets]

I support Harriet Miers. She has no Judicial experience but she did stay at a Holiday Inn express last night!..:D

That could be a Tom quote! That was funny as hell Suff.

The judicial experience means nothing to me, historically that has not been uncommon. I still have no opinion on her though because I don't know a thing about what she believes. I know she goes to church, but so what? There are plenty of folks in my county who go to the Baptist church that is fighting to keep the town dry (resteraunts can serve alcohol but you can't have packaged sales here), and after they leave church they go to get a drink in a restaraunt. Checking in for two hours every Sunday doesn't mean you have a core set of beliefs that you follow the other 6 days of the week. I'd like to think we would learn something about her in the hearings, but you know we won't.

But hey, since she ran the Texas Lottery Commission, she could probably do one hell of a job putting together the Supreme Court Superbowl Pool!

[Lefty]

I think we need someone with no judicial exp cause the ones that do have this exp gave us that horrible law Roe Vs Wade. They made law instead of interpreting the constitution. Don't need more like that. And that's not to mention that last debacle having to do with private ownership.
Bottom line, I you, nobody else has to know a thing about her. The Pres does and he gets to make the pick!

[Suff]

I think we need someone with no judicial exp cause the ones that do have this exp gave us that horrible law Roe Vs Wade. They made law instead of interpreting the constitution. Don't need more like that. And that's not to mention that last debacle having to do with private ownership.
Bottom line, I you, nobody else has to know a thing about her. The Pres does and he gets to make the pick!

The fact she has stood on both sides of the issue's is fine with me. It at least shows she has considered both sides. That's enough for me.

It's his pick, and that's that. I don't get to pick , he does. She seems OK to me. I'm also in the camp of , who cares if she has never been a judge? Sometimes it's good to have a balance of life experiences in a joint decision.

I'm onto other things. Unless something comes out in the hearings. She'll do.

[46zilzal]

I think we need someone with no judicial exp cause the ones that do have this exp gave us that horrible law Roe Vs Wade. They made law instead of interpreting the constitution.
come into the ER and view what a "back alley" abortion job looks like....

Where in the constitution does it SAY ANYTHING about that??

Your logic reminds me of a church my wife was FORCED to go to: got a gift of an ORGAN and refused it because it was not SPECIFICALLY ordained in the Bible as part of the service..Things have to be interpreted NOW not in years gone by

[JustRalph]

come into the ER and view what a "back alley" abortion job looks like....

Where in the constitution does it SAY ANYTHING about that??

Your logic reminds me of a church my wife was FORCED to go to: got a gift of an ORGAN and refused it because it was not SPECIFICALLY ordained in the Bible as part of the service..Things have to be interpreted NOW not in years gone by

once again, apples to oranges to try and make your point.......pathetic

[46zilzal]

I talk to lots of senior groups on health points and it is AMAZING that ONLY THE MEN are crazed over the idea of abortion. Women understand mistakes (particularly the women in their later years who stand a great chance of producing a Down's syndrome child).

Women should decide..PERIOD

[lsbets]

come into the ER and view what a "back alley" abortion job looks like....

Where in the constitution does it SAY ANYTHING about that??

Your logic reminds me of a church my wife was FORCED to go to: got a gift of an ORGAN and refused it because it was not SPECIFICALLY ordained in the Bible as part of the service..Things have to be interpreted NOW not in years gone by

I can understand your lack of knowledge regarding what would happen if (and it won't be) Roe v Wade were overturned since you don't live in this country and might not have access to factual information, but all that would happen is the issue of abortion would be turned back to the states to decide - as the constitution says it should be in the 10th amendment. Abortion would not all of a sudden be "illegal". The decisions made by government regarding abortion would simply be made at the state level.

How was your wife forced to go to a specific church? Was she kidnapped and dragged in at gun point? Did an armed posse of Christians knock down your door, tie her up, and drag her out? I've never heard of an adult being forced to go to church before.

[lsbets]

I talk to lots of senior groups on health points and it is AMAZING that ONLY THE MEN are crazed over the idea of abortion.

For someone who is always blasting others for posting absolutes and assumptions, it is amazing how often you post absolutes based on your assumptions.

[46zilzal]

I met my late wife when she was 15. During that period if she did not attend her step father's church she was not allowed to do anything...

You miss the point: I said the LOGIC reminds me of that

[46zilzal]

For someone who is always blasting others for posting absolutes and assumptions, it is amazing how often you post absolutes based on your assumptions.
just making an observation EXCLSUIVE of my point of view

[betchatoo]

I have to say in my experience, and I realize it is not admissable evidence, I have found more men than women zealous over the subject of abortion

[lsbets]

just making an observation EXCLSUIVE of my point of view

An observation completely influenced by your point of view. There are plenty of pro-life women out there, you just don't want to acknowledge that.

[46zilzal]

NOT in this neighborhood......HINT NOT in the Bible belt

I remember your crazy BLUE laws when I lived in Houston and was just amazed at some PIOUS ass holes telling me that ONE day of the week I had to restrict my life to their point of view. I was in a Kroger's and amongst all the food, some ass hole tells me I CAN'T buy at drain rack for the kitchen. Told him he could KEEP all the groceries....

Keep your thumpers..you deserve them

[lsbets]

NOT in this neighborhood......HINT NOT in the Bible belt

I remember your crazy BLUE laws when I lived in Houston and was just amazed at some PIOUS ass holes telling me that ONE day of the week I had to restrict my life to their point of view. I was in a Kroger's and amongst all the food, some ass hole tells me I CAN'T buy at drain rack for the kitchen. Told him he could KEEP all the groceries....

Keep your thumpers..you deserve them

The most ardently pro-life woman I know was born in the Bronx and lives in NJ - hardly the Bible Belt. 46 you see things as you want to see them and your narrow minded view clouds your vision. You're telling me there is not one pro-life woman in Canada?

As far as the thumpers go - they're our (American) thumpers and I won't stand for some foreigner attacking my countrymen! Its kind of like my family. I might have a crazy cousin, and I can call him crazy, but when some outsider calls him crazy they've crossed a line. I suggest you worry more about things where you live - north of the border. :p

[46zilzal]

TYou're telling me there is not one pro-life woman in Canada?

As far as the thumpers go - they're our (American) thumpers and I won't stand for some foreigner attacking my countrymen! Its kind of like my family. I might have a crazy cousin, and I can call him crazy, but when some outsider calls him crazy they've crossed a line. I suggest you worry more about things where you live - north of the border. :p
then DONT stand for it....and I have the same passport as YOU do, just not POLLUTED by evangelistic DOGMA

there are PRO LIFE people everywhere but a decided minority

[lsbets]

then DONT stand for it....and I have the same passport as YOU do, just not POLLUTED by evangelistic DOGMA

there are PRO LIFE people everywhere but a decided minority

Dude - I know all about your passport, however I think your sense of humor might have frozen in one of those winters there. You seem to be overly sensitive about a citizenship you have said numerous times you wish you did not have. I thought it was pretty obvious that my comment was sarcastic in nature.

Are you saying I am "polluted by evangalistic dogma". One, you assume I am Christian. Two, you assume that believeing that a child'd life is among the most precious things on earth to be strictly a religious viewpoint. Again, your assumptions about the world cloud your ability to think on anything but the most simplistic of levels.

At least you finally acknowledged that there are pro-life women in Canada after two posts of saying there were not.

[46zilzal]

must be fun to be BOTH a thumper and a flag waver...Where do I sign up??

[46zilzal]

THE REGION not you

[lsbets]

must be fun to be BOTH a thumper and a flag waver...Where do I sign up??

So you assume I am a "thumper"? It is really funny how you get on others for doing the same exact thing you do all the time - making assumptions with no evidence at all. Please point to one post where I proclaimed myself to be a "thumper". I am very certain you will not find one. But, never let the truth cloud your narrow minded view of the world. Are you really a doctor? I find it hard to believe that someone who displays so little intelligence day in and day out could have passed medical school. Or are you an example of the quality of doctors that socialized medicine brings?

[46zilzal]

again and with GUSTO: THE REGION, not specifically YOU....read the post above you before commenting and it might very well help those three neurons find one another!

[lsbets]

again and with GUSTO: THE REGION, not specifically YOU....read the post above you before commenting and it might very well help those three neurons find one another!

So, you lump an entire region into your little world view even though you constantly get on people for sterotyping all "liberals."

Continue if you must, I will happily administer the beating in this battle of wits Doctor 46. :lol: For you are unarmed in this battle, as your mind is clouded by your prejudice.

[46zilzal]

My entire family (my late mother's side) is from that NECK of the woods. My late wife's ENTIRE family are from that NECK OF THE WOODS. It is by PERSONAL observation over many a year that these conclusions are based.

BEATING?? I am not keeping score and there is NO prize.

but then you are a WARRIOR aren't you?? Must fight fight fight

[lsbets]

My entire family (my late mother's side) is from that NECK of the woods. My late wife's ENTIRE family are from that NECK OF THE WOODS. It is by PERSONAL observation over many a year that these conclusions are based.

BEATING?? I am not keeping score and there is NO prize.

but then you are a WARRIOR aren't you?? Must fight fight fight

So when Boxcar and Lefty talk about liberals from their personal experiences and observations that is somehow different than when you talk about an entire region based upon being related to a few people who once lived there?

Ah yes, I remember very well your original posts about the military and how the military guys would beat you up and get all the girls. You still have one heck of a complex from that, don't you?

[46zilzal]

Ah yes, I remember very well your original posts about the military and how the military guys would beat you up and get all the girls. You still have one heck of a complex from that, don't you?

I have NO idea where you formed that impression. I am a very large fellow who talked his way out of fights. INTIMIDATED? probably, but never touched. Get all the girls? I NEVER said anything in that regard. Women dont go out with pinheads now do they? Filling in the blanks are we??

I have Very little respect for the military that is well established and again from lots of experience with how it changed many of my friends (at least the ones who were lucky enough to come home in one piece)

[46zilzal]

ONE GOOD military experience: My senior year I rotated through a month in the hospital at Fort Ord and learned a lot.....

[lsbets]

I have Very little respect for the military that is well established and again from lots of experience with how it changed many of my friends (at least the ones who were lucky enough to come home in one piece)

And that sir, is why I have no respect for you. Once again you prove my point about how you view the world through a set of narrow minded, bigoted goggles that makes it impossible for you to see beyond the way you think things should be. I can gurantee you that I have much more "experience" with the military and people in the military, and they do not fit the descriptions you have used in the past to describe them. I seriously doubt you would measure up to most of the folks I have come to know in the military - not by their demonstrated bravery, courage, and sacrifice. Yet you hold them in disdain.

[Lefty]

46, so you're saying a back alley abortion is horrible? Well, Duh. But who chose to have the back alley job? Aborted babies have no choice. How many women breaking the law died from having an illegal abortion? How many innocent babies have died? Which is more terrible? A child having to obey their parents or a father who has no say in fate of his unborn child?

[Tom]

Judges are supposed to uphold laws and be unbiased. TheSC is a good example that this is NOT the case in reality. The Kangaroo Kourt is a gross failure and needs to be completley overhauled through ammendments.

The fact that everyone here seems to think it is acceptable for judges to consider thier own feelings and beliefs is very disturbing. This is NOT how justice works. This is NOT the scope of the Kourt.
When the Kourts stop protecting the laws, we have anarchy.
The feeling or opinions of a justice have no place in a court of law.
The very idea of having a bunch of old, feeble inded, senile geezers acting at will, with no checks and balances, for as long as the drool rolls out of thier mouths is revolting. The history of the Kourt is one of far too many nuts, kooks, incompetants, and space cadets to suit me.
Every session, at least one justice should lose their seat.

[Lefty]

Tom, and this is exactly what Bush has been saying. Someone who will uphold the constitution and not make up their own laws.

[46zilzal]

Tom, and this is exactly what Bush has been saying. Someone who will uphold the constitution and not make up their own laws.

what if something is ONLY relevant to this century and is NOT specifically in the constitution? They then APPLY principles there to the CURRENT situation.

[Lefty]

46, and what would that be?

[46zilzal]

whatever comes down the pike...nothing in particular

[lsbets]

Dr. 46 - when I reference the 10th amendment do you even know what it is and what it says? The answer to your question - how to deal with issues that arise today that were never thought of in 1787 - lies within both the 10th amendment and the commerce clause. Read the constitution, then get back to me.

[boxcar]

Anybody ever hear of Chief Justice Earl Warren. I don't believe he was ever a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court.

Bush hasn't set any precedent here. There were other justices on the SC besides Warren who never had judicial experience.

I've been silent on Bush's selection because like virtually everyone else (whether they want to admit it or not), I know very little about Miers. And unlike most of her critics, I will not fall into the logical fallacy trap of criticzing on the basis of what is unknown about her because this would be akin, for all practical intent and purposes, to arguing from silence. But this will all change once the hearings get underway and she starts moving her lips.

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

I think it is quite right to criticize this nomination without knowing anything about her. Her qualifications are irrevelant to the issue of why she should not be confirmed. She's the president's personal lawyer, part of the White House inner circle. Supreme Court noms shouldn't come from that circle period, no matter what their other qualifications might be for the actual job. I think this would be a really bad precedent if she is confirmed...

[Lefty]

game, yeah he shoulda nominated someone he didn't know so well so he could be double crossed like his old man. Who in the hell would he know better than someone from his inner circle? He wants someone who will follow the law and not make law.

[GameTheory]

Why not his wife? He knows her even better. You can't possibly argue that having a Supreme Court judge personally beholden to the Prez is a positive. 3 branches of government, checks and balances and all that. There are plenty of good solid "strict constructionist" candidates he could have named and everyone knows it. ANYONE he isn't personal friends with is a big risk? If Miers is NOT confirmed, should he then nominate someone else down the hall? If runs out people he knows well personally, should he announce, "Sorry, there is no one qualified. Can't find anybody."

[Tom]

Karl Rove.

Then, when he gets sentenced, he can appeal to himself!
(He certainly doens't appeal to ME!)
;)

[Tom]

what if something is ONLY relevant to this century and is NOT specifically in the constitution? They then APPLY principles there to the CURRENT situation.

NO!

[GameTheory]

Karl Rove.

Then, when he gets sentenced, he can appeal to himself!
(He certainly doens't appeal to ME!)
;)That would be just as absurd. I think the best thing the Senate could do is not ask her a single question and then vote her down just on principle...

[PaceAdvantage]

Where in the constitution does it SAY ANYTHING about that??

Exactly the point, is it not?

[boxcar]

Why not his wife? He knows her even better. You can't possibly argue that having a Supreme Court judge personally beholden to the Prez is a positive. 3 branches of government, checks and balances and all that. There are plenty of good solid "strict constructionist" candidates he could have named and everyone knows it. ANYONE he isn't personal friends with is a big risk? If Miers is NOT confirmed, should he then nominate someone else down the hall? If runs out people he knows well personally, should he announce, "Sorry, there is no one qualified. Can't find anybody."

Yes, there are plenty of "good solid 'strict constructionists'" out there -- but would any of them have been able to dodge the fillibuster bullet? You don't believe for a moment, do you, that the Dems would nominate someone who they knew would give the court a decided tilt to the right?

It just might be that Bush has outsmarted his adversaries by nominating this gal. Every leading Dem in the sentate had dossiers prepared and waiting for the sole purpose of slinging mud immediately at any of the top 20 or so leading candidates for the job, as soon as the nominee was announced Well, guess what? They were foiled. Just like they were foiled with Roberts! You see, the big problem Bush has is that there aren't very many Roberts types out there from which to choose. Not very many highly qualified, extremely intelligent people -- without paper trails.

Miers may not be the best person overall for the job; but she may be just the kind of person who could escape the fillibuster and get the court to lean to the right.

Boxcar

[Tom]

I think W got confused. I think he meant to nominate to FEMA.
She isn't qualified for that job either.
:bang:

[chickenhead]

I am happy to see so many conservatives against this nominee -- shows principles. I just want some brilliant, intellectually honest people on the court. This lady may be both of those, but she really can't be on the court, you need an independant court. She would NEVER have been nominated on her credentials alone.

[JustRalph]

I want Bork........!!!!!!!!! and I want him now!!! :D

[boxcar]

I want Bork........!!!!!!!!! and I want him now!!! :D

I hear ya, and I feel with you. But I tell you a truth: If Bush had nominated a "strict constructionist" (a/k/a "originalist") that nominee would have been borked by a fillibuster in the senate, as sure as night follows the day.

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

Bush should welcome that fight, it puts the Democrats on the defensive and makes them look weak. Makes them engage in just the sort of behavior that puts them in a bad light. I don't think this nomination makes sense from really any angle.

[boxcar]

Bush should welcome that fight, it puts the Democrats on the defensive and makes them look weak. Makes them engage in just the sort of behavior that puts them in a bad light. I don't think this nomination makes sense from really any angle.

It certainly wouldn't put the Dems in any kind of "bad light" with the various special interest groups who contribute beaucoup $$$ to the party, and are adamant that no conservative be confirmed. And since when do Dems care about how they look? (You talk as though this is a party who knows anything about shame.) They certainly didn't care about how they appeared to the public eye when they filibustered all of Bush's nominess for the circuit and appellate courts! And the stakes now are a lot bigger!

In fact, it's Bush's track record in nominating conservative justices that prohibits me at this time from critcizing his pick. He has consistently nominated people who the Left has clearly disliked. This is the good news. This fact gives me some hope that he might be trying to pull a fast one over the Dems with this somewhat nondescript lawyer. He could be throwing them (and a lot of other people, as well) an off-speed change up when all the conventional political wisdom in the Beltway was fully anticipating a hard, fast ball (a high-powered conservative, experienced, well-known justice).

Again, I'm not defending his choice. I'm just tossing out some facts that makes this writer cut him some slack for the time being-- to give him the benefit of the doubt until I learn more about Miers at the hearings.

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

But it would put them in a bad light with the voters who are not highly partisan. This nom puts Bush in a bad light with that group.

[boxcar]

But it would put them in a bad light with the voters who are not highly partisan. This nom puts Bush in a bad light with that group.

GT, can you say M-O-N-E-Y? Both political parties receive the bulk of their financial contributions from those special interest groups who are "highly partisan" -- from each party's respective "base". This being a political fact of life, Bush is in a "bad light" with much of his base -- much more so than with "moderates", "fence straddlers", etc. Conversely, the Dems are beholding to their base, and aren't nearly as concerned about antagonizing or upsetting "lukewarm" supporters outside their base.

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

But this pick is upsetting Bush's base. No group period likes this pick. This pick isn't popular with anyone. Even if Miers is a good judge, politically it would have been better to pick a known quanity. I don't see any positives in this for Bush. I do not believe the known candidates were unconfirmable. If he had nominated J.R. Brown and the Dems went after her I don't think that would make them look so good. (J.R. Brown is a woman, is black, and grew up poor.)

[Tom]

What does her law partner Jacoby think about all this? :confused:

[boxcar]

But this pick is upsetting Bush's base. No group period likes this pick. This pick isn't popular with anyone. Even if Miers is a good judge, politically it would have been better to pick a known quanity. I don't see any positives in this for Bush. I do not believe the known candidates were unconfirmable. If he had nominated J.R. Brown and the Dems went after her I don't think that would make them look so good. (J.R. Brown is a woman, is black, and grew up poor.)

Agreed. No one likes here because so little is known about her. This is the risk Bush is taking.

Again, speaking hypothetically, the "positive" for Bush is that he could sneak one on by the Dems and give the SC a decided tilt to the right.

But it seems the crux of our disagreement is that just about any conservative "known quantity" could be confirmed. Here I disagree strongly -- because there's too much at stake for the Dems.

It's long been the goal of the Dems to instutionalize Liberalsim in the SC. If the Dems could accomplish this, in a decade or so, this country would be unrecognizable. Just imagine for a moment having the SC stacked with left-wing extremist loonies of the ilk of the 9th Circus Court. If this were to ever happen who or what government instutituion would overturn the SC's whacky decisions? It's one thing to have certifiable nut cases on an appellate court who can be reigned in whenever their bad decisions are overturned by the SC (which is quite often!), and altogether another to have whackjobs on the SC whose bad decisions become etched in stone as "law of the land". And to the best of our knowledge (that is, assuming Roberts is what everyone thinks he is), the court right now is only one seat removed from being tilted in one direction or the another (assuming Miers is what Bush says she is). This is precisely why this particular nomination for that seat will not sail through very smoothly at all. And if the Dems were ever to confirm a known conservative justice, the wrath of their base would come down on them!

And this is especially true because the Dems already angered the base with the confirmation of Roberts when they threw Bush a bone with Roberts -- something which they felt they could afford to do because that seat wasn't a "swing" seat. The Dems figured they were merely replacing a staunch conservative with another conservative (hopefully). The Conservatives gained nothing with Roberts; and the Liberals lost nothing. All remains status quo. But this isn't the case with this seat. The Dems stand to lose very big, and only God knows for how many years, if a conservative were to replace fence straddler O'Connor. And this, sir, just isn't going to happen! At least not without WW III breaking out on the senate floor!

As far as Brown goes: Have you already forgotten how the Dems shamelessly and mercilessly hung, quartered and gutted Clarence Thomas in the hopes that his nomination would bleed to death? Yes, he squeaked by and was confirmed; but I don't believe his confirmation shifted the balance on the court either (although I stand to be corrected). But in either case, it's a different world today. Back then, the Dems only took the gloves off when going into a big battle. Today, they're infinitely more desparate due to the erosion of their power over the years, and their tactics more closely resemble those of terrorists than those of a mere street fighter.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Box.........he is asking us to trust him. I don't.............


I think Chicken is right about the fight. Let's get it over with...........

Change the rules and put an end to this half ass filibuster. At least make the Dems stand up there and perform a real filibuster.

[boxcar]

Box.........he is asking us to trust him. I don't.............

I think Chicken is right about the fight. Let's get it over with...........

Change the rules and put an end to this half ass filibuster. At least make the Dems stand up there and perform a real filibuster.

Well, it may come down to this, which, of course, I wouldn't be opposed to changing those rules. But the reason I give Bush the "benefit of the doubt" right now (until I learn differently) is that he has consistently chosen conservatives in the past to fill vacancies on other courts. (And you see how far that has gotten him.) Therefore, I have no reason to currently believe that he would deviate off that course.

Besides all this, I thought the whole purpose of the hearings was to determine nominees' qualifications. I find it odd that so many have rushed to judgment before the hearings have served that purpose. (Maybe we should do more than change the fillibuster rules, and just amend the Constitution to have public opinon make the judgment to confirm or not confirm.)

Perhaps all this pre-hearing hoopla is, yet, another sign of this nation's "fast food" mentality that is so pervasive throughout all our socieity.

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

Well, it may come down to this, which, of course, I wouldn't be opposed to changing those rules. But the reason I give Bush the "benefit of the doubt" right now (until I learn differently) is that he has consistently chosen conservatives in the past to fill vacancies on other courts. (And you see how far that has gotten him.) Therefore, I have no reason to currently believe that he would deviate off that course.

Besides all this, I thought the whole purpose of the hearings was to determine nominees' qualifications. I find it odd that so many have rushed to judgment before the hearings have served that purpose. (Maybe we should do more than change the fillibuster rules, and just amend the Constitution to have public opinon make the judgment to confirm or not confirm.)

Perhaps all this pre-hearing hoopla is, yet, another sign of this nation's "fast food" mentality that is so pervasive throughout all our socieity.
True enough, and if she were an unknown but not an insider than I would be waiting patiently. It is her insiderness that bothers me...

[boxcar]

True enough, and if she were an unknown but not an insider than I would be waiting patiently. It is her insiderness that bothers me...

The fact that she's an "insider" may mean that Bush knows of what he speaks. However, if his selection is grounded in just cronyism, then I think this will come out in some way, shape or form at the hearings. If she's not qualified, and she's not what he represents her to be, these things, too, will manifest themselves at those hearings. This is why I'm not rushing to prejudge. (Besides, I made a good living going against public opinion at the track.) ;)

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

The fact that she's an "insider" may mean that Bush knows of what he speaks. However, if his selection is grounded in just cronyism, then I think this will come out in some way, shape or form at the hearings. If she's not qualified, and she's not what he represents her to be, these things, too, will manifest themselves at those hearings. This is why I'm not rushing to prejudge. (Besides, I made a good living going against public opinion at the track.) ;)
Her insiderness bothers me whether she is qualified or not, whether Bush is right about her or not. I think insiderness is an instant and prevailing disqualification, no matter what her other merits. So I can prejudge her, if you will, on those grounds alone, because her insiderness is not in question.

Now if she is confirmed I hope she is a good judge and all that, but no matter what kind of judge she is her confirmation would be a bad precedent.

[boxcar]

The greatest commentator on our Constitution, Justice Joseph Story, served on the Supreme Court while simultaneously holding the Dane Chair of Law at Harvard. Here's what he said about interpreting the Constitution:

"Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties… . They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense."

It doesn't appear that this distinguished justice thought that one had to be an Einstein, or a rocket scientist, or an atomic physicist or a brain surgeon to understand the plain meaning of the Constitution. A little common sense combined with a good dose of intellectual honesty would more often than not ensure the proper interepretation of this document.

As many here might know, George Will, a well known and respected conservative political anaysist and columnist, has spoken harshly against Miers. But perhaps another writer has the right take on Sen. Cornyn's defense of Bush's nominee:

We have a better view of Bush’s ambition for Miers in Senator Cornyn’s defense of her, calling her a justice who would bring the “dangerously out of touch” court “back down to earth.” This means not just replacing one justice with another but altering the public perception of the court as well. Hence Meirs’ faith plays a political role. To tame the Court we need a combination of skills: Thomas’s originalism, Scalia’s rhetorical brilliance, Roberts’ legal skills, and now Miers’ practical experience, producing a plain reading of the Constitution.

At first it seems odd that conservatives seem to be the ones ready to filibuster (led by Trent Lott?) over a lost intellectual feast/food-fight. In fact, it reflects the narrowness of conservative thinking, which has focused on replacing one justice with another, instead of considering changing the entire institution. Still the White House must have a campaign strategy for her, and she needs to impress.

http://www.claremont.org/localliberty/archives/003907.html

Just some more food for thought...

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Her insiderness bothers me whether she is qualified or not, whether Bush is right about her or not. I think insiderness is an instant and prevailing disqualification, no matter what her other merits. So I can prejudge her, if you will, on those grounds alone, because her insiderness is not in question.

Now if she is confirmed I hope she is a good judge and all that, but no matter what kind of judge she is her confirmation would be a bad precedent.

Inside, outiside, half way in between, one foot in, one foot out...whatever...aren't my primary concerns. Her qualifications and judicial philosophy are what count the most with me. As stated earlier, if her nomination finds its ground in just cronyism, this will come out at the hearings.

I guess we just see things differently, and we certainly order our priorities differently.

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

Inside, outiside, half way in between, one foot in, one foot out...whatever...aren't my primary concerns. Her qualifications and judicial philosophy are what count the most with me. As stated earlier, if her nomination finds its ground in just cronyism, this will come out at the hearings.

I guess we just see things differently, and we certainly order our priorities differently.
Bad precedents don't necessarily come into play right away -- they bite you in the ass in the future, possibly many times. It is an issue bigger than just this nomination because it has implications for all future nominations. We are going to have a left-leaning President back in the White House at some point. Imagine Hillary becomes President and gets to nominate a justice in her first year of office. She nominates someone with excellent credentials who also happens to be her campaign manager. Hillary is going to be in office another 3-7 years. Hillary having her own personal stooge on the court isn't going to bother you REGARDLESS of his/her other qualifications?

I put a very high priority indeed on the independence of the court so it is a true separate branch of government. Maintaining that independence is certainly more important than having some particular judge on the court who is going to be more or less the same ideologically as any other candidate Bush puts up.

[boxcar]

GT, a nomination of any liberal to the SC would unsettle me greatly, regardless who did the nominating, or how close or distant the nominee was to the president.

And just because someone is an "insider" does not necessarily mean that that person will not think, decide and act independantly of the Executive Branch. That such a person will not be his or her own person.

Furthermore, one must wonder why the FF, in all their collective wisdom, didn't consider this matter to be of any great significance when drawing up the Constitution. They could have easily constructed a restrictive clause or two prohibiting such a practice, if they had thought otherwise.

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

GT, a nomination of any liberal to the SC would unsettle me greatly, regardless who did the nominating, or how close or distant the nominee was to the president.

And just because someone is an "insider" does not necessarily mean that that person will not think, decide and act independantly of the Executive Branch. That such a person will not be his or her own person.

Furthermore, one must wonder why the FF, in all their collective wisdom, didn't consider this matter to be of any great significance when drawing up the Constitution. They could have easily constructed a restrictive clause or two prohibiting such a practice, if they had thought otherwise.


Permit me to repost this link:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354

with some passages from Alexander Hamilton:

"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."

"The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other."

[boxcar]

Permit me to repost this link:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354

with some passages from Alexander Hamilton:

He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."

Actually, GT, if you go back and read my comments, I'm in full agreement with Hamiltion. Have I not said that if Miers' nomination is grounded in just cronyism (and, therefore, without any "other merit") that this would be brought out in the senate hearings?

The main dif between you and I is that you have already judged Miers to have "no other merit", whereas I have not. You have already judged her to be beholding to Bush. But as for me, I'm willing to let her have her "day(s) in court", in a manner of speaking. I'm willing to let her go through the senate process, which is precisely what Hamilton advocated.

But even more than this, you have carried your prejudice to the extreme; for you have also stated that you didn't care what her qualfications are or what her judicial philosophy is. To paraphrase Hamiltion, you don't care if she has any merit at all! But this, my friend, is not how I read Hamilton's sentiments.

Note carefully what Hamilton said next:

"The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing.

Hamilton didn't say here that the "possibility of rejection would be a strong motive" for not proposing -- but rather a strong motive "to care in proposing", i.e. -- the the president's should reflect long and hard on why he wants this person or that person on the court, and examine his own motives and conscience. Someone "close" to the president should certainly be scrutinized carefully by the senate, as I suspect Miers will be. But that "closeness" in and of itself -- to the exclusion of all other significant considerations -- does not precude (nor should it) the possibility for the president to choose someone "close" who may be well fitted for the position. And this, sir, is what I've essentially been saying all along.

Boxcar

[Suff]

:D Breaking news...


Harriet Miers, while president of her Houston Law firm, and while acting as Counsel to George Bush.... In 2000, gave $1000 to Hilary Clinton for NY Senator!

Check was drawn on Law Firms General Account.

:eek:

[Suff]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46743

[boxcar]

Yes, Suff...but haven't you heard by now: She's repented of her sinful ways and has seen the light? (Either that or she's a bonafide RINO masquerading as a conservative.)

Boxcar

[lsbets]

You have a major Texas law firm that does not only corporate law, but has a class action division. One of the big political hotbuttons is tort reform. It doesn't surprise me in the least that the firm gave to candidates from both parties. That's the way business works.

[Suff]

You have a major Texas law firm that does not only corporate law, but has a class action division. One of the big political hotbuttons is tort reform. It doesn't surprise me in the least that the firm gave to candidates from both parties. That's the way business works.

yea and no. I understand the need to have a foot in each pond. It's a little unusual to do so with first timer's. Generally business orientated corporate donors give to incumbents. Her status was unique. Still, they only gave to 26 Politicians....and you'd have to imagine they certainly discussed this one. From what I hear , Hilary Clinton and Osama Bin laden are 1,2 in unpopular opinion polls in Texas.

I just think it is interesting. Her Democratic and Catholic days, supposedly ended with her Rebirth to an Evangelical Protestant in 1988. That's the pitch they made on the Meet the Press this Sunday. This donation was 2000.

Russet responded to the claim of "Trust Bush" , she won't veer", with the point that, if she can go through such an enormous transformation once, whats to say it won't happen again.

A real uppercut.....that was answered in stuttered..ba ba ba ba ba.. She's a mature woman now!

How powerful....:D and discomforting if your hard right

[Kreed]

I stick to my original gut reaction, let that woman on the bench. So whAT?
wHAT could she really harm? In a way she mimics Kerry. She Flip Flops.
democrat catholic >> republican muslim! just kidding, of course. Evangelical.
Harriet would be so much more valuable as a Muslim. Think a Karen Hughes who
actually knows something!! how refreshing for 43's PR staff. Please, I am not
Dissing 43 hERE, I've done that before & will probably again, but he, 43, is just
a latrene, much like Evolution giving the Giant Squid just 1 long tentacle, and
needing 50 years or more to Evolve the other one. 43 Is a Giant Tease.
DEAR BUDHa, RELEASE me from my suffering. with 43, its Eternal. the man
(if that what he's best called) is leading no1 nowhere. its a sorrow fast being
an epic Scandal. "He" Treats his incredible good luck as destiny. All you who
voted for 43 was (1) Stupid or (2) Evil or (3) Gullible or (4) Now Sorry. What
a terrible throw back to primordial ooze. anyways, these are not random threads, just follow the dots.

[Lefty]

kreed gushes:voted for 43 was (1) Stupid or (2) Evil or (3) Gullible or (4) Now Sorry. What
a terrible throw back to primordial ooze. anyways, these are not random

You sure are calling a lot of people names.
It's not us, it's you!

[Kreed]

I'm sorry Lefty, but fACE IT, if a president cannot make 70% of us legal
inhabitants happy, he fails. 43 is a total failure and history WILL say so.
HE was way above his ability to govern from the start; what he did NOT
expect was anything serious happening on his watch, but like life itself,
surprises abound, and he was UNprepared. And remarkably (2 ME) he's still
flounders. But now HE knows it & that self-awareness will UNdo him. He's NOW
Aware of his deficits. ah, when reality appears, and YOU see it's appearance,
how different the world seems. LOL, is all i can type.

[Lefty]

kreed, what fantasy world are you in? No Pres that ever lived made 70% happy. I keep having to remind you libs that if Bush hadn't cut taxes we woulda faced a big recession after 9-11. A whole lotta Al Queda has been arrested or killed; I have even heard it was 60%. No Repub Conservative Pres could make you Dems, Libs and wannabe Socialists happy no matter what.
When the dust settles, history will recognize the fact that this Pres took on monumental tasks and for the most part, succeeded. Maybe if he was as immoral as the Clintons you would like him more.

[ljb]

kreed, what fantasy world are you in? No Pres that ever lived made 70% happy. I keep having to remind you libs that if Bush hadn't cut taxes we woulda faced a big recession after 9-11. A whole lotta Al Queda has been arrested or killed; I have even heard it was 60%. No Repub Conservative Pres could make you Dems, Libs and wannabe Socialists happy no matter what.
When the dust settles, history will recognize the fact that this Pres took on monumental tasks and for the most part, succeeded. Maybe if he was as immoral as the Clintons you would like him more.
Lefty,
Bush is more immoral then Clinton, Clinton only messed with a few gals, Bush is messing with the whole country except the wealthiest 1 percent. :D

[Lefty]

lbj, once again you are flat wrong. EVERYBODY got a tax cut and it staved off recession. You leftists need a new mantra, this dog doesn't hunt. How is it immoral to give EVERYBODY that pays taxes a cut? Go to your blogs and see whatch can come up with.

[Suff]

Whatever cut I got went to Mobil Oil. And then some.


Income Redistribution.... Republican style...;)

[ljb]

Oh, I had to use mine to pay higher medical bills and premiums to insurance companies and higher user fees at all public facilities and higher tuition costs at schools and I ran out of tax cut money long time ago. Lefty must be one of them millionaires that got hefty cuts.

[Secretariat]

Oh, I had to use mine to pay higher medical bills and premiums to insurance companies and higher user fees at all public facilities and higher tuition costs at schools and I ran out of tax cut money long time ago. Lefty must be one of them millionaires that got hefty cuts.

LJB, yours lasted a longer time than mine. Mine went to pay for increased energy costs, increased property taxes, increased state, local, sales and school taxes to offset reduced federal revenue as well as higher user fees all around. I was able to keep insurance costs down by dropping that, and thank god I don't have any kids left to put through school. I think you're right about Lefty, he must be friends with Cheney and got extra money from one of his Halliburton buddies to up the benefit of his $500 tax cut a bit.

[ljb]

Sec,
I didn't mention the increase in taxes because I know how that word irritates the neocons on this board. Only word that I know that upsets them more is Hillary. :D :D :D

[JustRalph]

Whatever cut I got went to Mobil Oil. And then some.


Income Redistribution.... Republican style...;)

don't tell me you are blaming bush for gas prices?

Amazing? You guys blame Bush for everything that went up since 2000? It is absurd.

[lsbets]

don't tell me you are blaming bush for gas prices?

Amazing? You guys blame Bush for everything that went up since 2000? It is absurd.

Ralph, they'd be lost without Bush - they need him or else they might have look inwards when confronting life's daily problems.

I'm still waiting for the guys who love to quote from "insiders" books about Presidents to mention Louis Freeh's book and his comments about Clinton. I see him the same way I saw Paul O'Neill - someone with a grudge trying to sell a book, but some folks took great offense to me characterizing O'neill like that. I wonder if they give the same credibility to Freeh's book. Oh wait, I know the answer - it doesn't fit their view of the world, so in this case they'll agree that Freeh is not very credible. (Although I think a lot of what Freeh said is probably true, I don't see him as a credible source for the information). They only see what they want to, you know that Ralph, that's why they need Bush.

[ljb]

don't tell me you are blaming bush for gas prices?

Amazing? You guys blame Bush for everything that went up since 2000? It is absurd.
Let's see Bush invades one of the largest oil producing nations in the world. Shutting down most of their production thereby decreasing world supply.
Demand remains steady (or increases ) supply decreases.
Wasn't there something about supply and demand in economics 101 ?
Duh :rolleyes:
Lifes problems would be a little easier if we didn't have someone in power fighting us every step of the way.

[Lefty]

lbj, you're a caution, son. If you don't get it by now and you don't, it's beyond me to keep explaining it to you. But let me try, a little. The demand is coming from China and India and us, mostly. You think Saddam would be selling the bulk to us or them? But that's moot anyway as we are fighting the war on terror and Saddam was a part of it and don't make me repeat myself onn that score, it gets tiresome.
The Dems shortsightedness has us in this oil crunch. If we had built some refineries in the last 25 yrs and drilled our own oil say as late as 95, WE'D HAVE A GREAT SUPPLY RIGHT NOW. Even today, the Dems still resist. Either dumb or have an agenda or both.
And you still haven't explained what GW hads done that's even slightly immoral.

[Tom]

Lucky me.

Rochester NY area is second only to Brownsville as having to pay the highest percentage of our paychecks for gas.

Go Galasono! http://www.golisano.com/

At last, a guy rich enough not to need the party machine to get elected.
As major party candidate, he might pull it off.


BTW......you bunch of left-wing nuts want to explain how Bush raised gas prices for me? There is a difference between coddling his puppeteers and actually raising prices. Please 'splain it to me.......

[ljb]

lbj, you're a caution, son. If you don't get it by now and you don't, it's beyond me to keep explaining it to you. But let me try, a little. The demand is coming from China and India and us, mostly. You think Saddam would be selling the bulk to us or them? But that's moot anyway as we are fighting the war on terror and Saddam was a part of it and don't make me repeat myself onn that score, it gets tiresome.
The Dems shortsightedness has us in this oil crunch. If we had built some refineries in the last 25 yrs and drilled our own oil say as late as 95, WE'D HAVE A GREAT SUPPLY RIGHT NOW. Even today, the Dems still resist. Either dumb or have an agenda or both.
And you still haven't explained what GW hads done that's even slightly immoral.
Lefty,
Oil is sold on a world market. No matter who buys Iraqs oil, if it's not there we have a shortage in world supply thereby increasing prices.
You will have to explain to me how starting a needless war for personal gain is not immoral or pushing for a tax break for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans while increasing medical expenses for retirees living on fixed incomes is not immoral. Splain that to me Lefty.
The oil companies are getting rich with the refineries they have no need to build more the result being increased production and possibly less profit for big oil. Another one from econ 101 The law of diminishing returns.

[Lefty]

lbj, you'll have to prove he started a needless war for personal gain. That's just your ill informed, leftwing opinion, that parrots Ted Kennedy. Even without this war Saddam would be selling to China and India and our own resources remain untapped. Meanwhile, Saddam might have hit us with a weapon. Erring on the side of caution is what I expect from a Pres, if it was an error which I don'yt blve.

[Secretariat]

I wonder if they give the same credibility to Freeh's book. Oh wait, I know the answer - it doesn't fit their view of the world, so in this case they'll agree that Freeh is not very credible.

You're right. I agree Freeh is not very credible. He's constantly trying to make excuses for his own incompetence. I wouldn't spend a penny on a book by him.

We're all aware of the mistaken arrest of Richard Jewell in the Olympic bombing, but David Corn recently layed in to Freeh recently as reported on FOX.

"I [David Corn] said on Fox that Whitewater, Travelgate was nothing compared to the scandals and misdeeds that occurred within the FBI during Freeh's years. There was the mishandling of the Timothy McVeigh documents, the recklessly negligent mismanagement of the FBI's computer system (which wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars), the Wen Ho Lee debacle, and assorted problems with the FBI crime lab. And, I went on, let's not forget the tragic case in which the FBI was notified in August 2001 by the CIA (a year-and-a-half late) that two suspected al Qaeda and taxpayers' dollars. And, as we know now, these inquiries resulted in no charges against Clinton. The Whitewater probe did lead to the Monica mess, which did lead to impeachment. But that's only because conservative activists were able to ensnare a guilty and sleazy guy (Clinton) in a perjury trap. If Freeh has a beef, it should be with the conservatives for setting up Clinton and wasting the FBI's time. But I've seen no sign that Freeh--who has donated thousands of dollars to the GOP--was troubled by such shenanigans on the right.terrorists were possibly in the United States and then failed to do much with this information. (As the 9/11 commission report noted, Freeh's FBI did not "recognize the significance" of this lead from the CIA, did not "take adequate action," and did not "give sufficient priority to the [subsequent] search."
)
I was on a roll. And on my lap was a copy of one of the interim reports put out by the 9/11 commission. I had highlighted several choice passages:

* We learned through our interviews that prior to 9/11, [FBI] field agents often were diverted from counterterrorism or other intelligence work in order to cover major criminal cases.

* Prior to 9/11, the FBI did not have a process in place to effectively manage its intelligence collection efforts. It did not identify intelligence gaps.

* Collection of useful intelligence from human sources was limited. By the mid-1990s, senior FBI managers became concerned that the Bureau's statistically-driven performance system had resulted in a roster of mediocre sources. The FBI did not have a formal mechanism for validating source reporting.

* The FBI did not dedicate sufficient resources to the surveillance or translation needs of counterterrorism agents.

* [T]he FBI did not have a sufficient number of translators proficient in Arabic.

* [FBI] analysts did not know what they didn't know.

* [P]rior to 9/11, relatively few strategic counterterrorism analytical products had been completed.

* Prior to 9/11, the FBI did not have an adequate ability to know what it knew. In other words, FBI did not have an effective mechanism for capturing or sharing its institutional knowledge. FBI agents did create records of interviews and other investigative efforts, but there were no reports officers to condense the information into meaningful intelligence that could be retrieved and disseminated.

* The FBI's primary information management system, designed using 1980s technology already obsolete when installed in 1995, limited the Bureau's ability to share its information internally and externally. The FBI did not have an effective system for storing, searching, or retrieving information of intelligence value contained in its investigative files.
Guess what? In out four-minute spot, I didn't get the chance to cite one of these passages. But the 9/11 commission--more in this interim report than in its final report--had stated pretty clearly that Freeh's FBI was a mess. There is much for Freeh to explain in a book, but it's not Clinton's moral lapses."

Interesting comments about John O'Neill who died in the towers about Freeh as reported on Frontline.

Frontline – John O. Neill and Louis Freeh

"From the beginning, O'Neill's cop instincts told him the Saudis weren't fully cooperating. They were hiding something.

RICHARD CLARKE, NSC Chief of Counterterrorism '92-'01: On at least one occasion, John told me that he believed that the Saudis were telling us one thing but doing another, and that he tried to persuade the director of the FBI of that, but the director wanted to believe that the Saudis were cooperating.

NARRATOR: Finally, on a flight back to Washington, O'Neill decided to give Freeh a piece of his mind. The way they tell the story at the bureau, O'Neill uttered an indelicate phrase, telling his boss the Saudis were blowing smoke up a particular portion of the director's anatomy.

CHRIS ISHAM, ABC News: He never told me the precise words, but I can hear John saying them. I -- you know, I think that he felt that the Saudis were definitely playing games and that the senior officials in the U.S. government, including Louis Freeh, just didn't get it.

NARRATOR: The story has it that Freeh didn't appreciate the bluntness. The two flew home in silence for 12 hours"

[ljb]

lbj, you'll have to prove he started a needless war for personal gain. That's just your ill informed, leftwing opinion, that parrots Ted Kennedy. Even without this war Saddam would be selling to China and India and our own resources remain untapped. Meanwhile, Saddam might have hit us with a weapon. Erring on the side of caution is what I expect from a Pres, if it was an error which I don'yt blve.
History will prove this war as being needless. You will not believe it but it will be proven true. I suppose you are talking about the oil reserves in Alaska. Well we could drill enough in Alaska to make it look like swiss cheese and the oil companies would still sell to the highest bidder resulting in little or no decrease in prices for us. Saddam's wmds exist only in the minds of the unknowing faux infomercial viewers. Erring on the side of caution? Are you talking about his reaction to Katrina or perhaps the sunami ?

[JustRalph]

The war wasn't needless. It was just handled wrong. And still is. Not enough force used. Not enough death and destruction. We should be half way thru the rebuild of syria by now. When I say it wasn't needless, I mean it will have ramifications throughout the MiddleEast for 30-40 years. Just watching our military walk thru Iraq in 3 days got the initial desired effect. Everything after that 3 days has been a clusterF#$$%. We layed down.

Sec, you are hysterical some time. You say the conservatives set Clinton up? I am sure the conservatives put Monica in the White House and taught her to play tonsil hockey too! Nope, that good ole boy did himself in. I am sure that the Conservatives provided Monica with that thong she waved at Clinton too.

I agree Louie Freeh was a half ass leader of the FBI. But it is very hard to dispute some of the things he is saying about Clinton. I am pretty sure Clinton didn't can his ass because Clinton knew that Freeh was aware of things that others were not. Clinton left him there to delay Freeh writing a book until after Clinton was out of office. Ever think of that?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Amazing! 137 posts on Harriet M, who nobody knows, without going off topic!LOL!!

[Lefty]

lbj, the war needless? What are all those terrorists do there? They are not insurgents as is wrongly reported. They are terrorists flowing in because they know an established democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan spells the end for them. You are too shortsighted to see that or just too anxious to blame Bush. And the rest of your comments don't have enough merit or validity to comment on even though you have once again ignored my advice and tried to be funny.

[bettheoverlay]

l because they know an established democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan spells the end for them.

I hear this assumption often. Tom Friedman, whose opinions I respect, reiterated it this morning on Imus. Why do people feel this way? What exactly is going to happen throughout the Arab world? Are the terrorists around the world going to be so disheartened they will put their bombs away?

[ljb]

lbj, the war needless? What are all those terrorists do there? They are not insurgents as is wrongly reported. They are terrorists flowing in because they know an established democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan spells the end for them. You are too shortsighted to see that or just too anxious to blame Bush. And the rest of your comments don't have enough merit or validity to comment on even though you have once again ignored my advice and tried to be funny.
Lefty,
If you think it is worthwhile to exhaust all these American resources and people to implement a theocracy similar to Iran's in Iraq, then yes i guess you would think the war is not needless. Other wise it is a needless war. Sorry to hear you have no ability to respond to the rest of my comments.

[Lefty]

lbj, what rest of your comments? You were trying(unsuccessfully)to be funny. We were talking about Iraq and then you toss in Hurricanes. Won't you libs ever stay on subject without trying to obfuscate?
The war is necessary, but you will never admit it. The unneccessary war was Bosnia. No threat to us.

[ljb]

lbj, what rest of your comments? You were trying(unsuccessfully)to be funny. We were talking about Iraq and then you toss in Hurricanes. Won't you libs ever stay on subject without trying to obfuscate?
The war is necessary, but you will never admit it. The unneccessary war was Bosnia. No threat to us.
Actually Lefty, When you said Bush erred on the side of caution, I tried to recall the times Bush was cautious. I recalled his cautious response to Katrina and the sunami. I should add he was cautious when confronted with the PDB "Osama determined to strike in U.S." Nothing humorous about` those cautious moves by Bush.

[Lefty]

lbj, my mstk was giving you too much credit. If he hadn't done anything about Saddam and Saddam hit us with something we would have more dead and the dems woulda cried impeachment. With all the intelligence he had and the dems confirming it with their own rhetoric, Bush was right to go get Saddam. That's the caution. To do nothing, asd Clinton mostly did, is dangerous. 9-11 proved that. Clinton had many chances to get Osama but refused and we got 9-11.

[ljb]

lbj, my mstk was giving you too much credit. If he hadn't done anything about Saddam and Saddam hit us with something we would have more dead and the dems woulda cried impeachment. With all the intelligence he had and the dems confirming it with their own rhetoric, Bush was right to go get Saddam. That's the caution. To do nothing, asd Clinton mostly did, is dangerous. 9-11 proved that. Clinton had many chances to get Osama but refused and we got 9-11.
What would he hit us with a burka? PDB "Osama determined to strike in U.S." What did your man do? Went fishing. Just like his reaction to Katrina, ignore it until the polls come in or somebody flys a plane into a building .

[Lefty]

Guess you forgot that worldwide intelligence and all your dem friends said he had WMD's. Why am I wasting time with you? You choose to ignore the possibilities and just wanta "rag" on Bush and you seem to have no memory whatsoever. YOu are a gigantic waste of time.
It was Clinton who ignored Osama and it was the locals who dropped the ball on Katrina but why do I keep posting facts? You hate facts and love the dem propaganda.

[PaceAdvantage]

What did your man do?

Actually, he's all of ours. He's our President of our United States of America.

[ljb]

Actually, he's all of ours. He's our President of our United States of America.
Yes he is but, Lefty and I were having a debate and he was talking about Clinton. Remember when he was all of ours? Anyway I digress, when I said your man I was referring to the fact that Lefty supported him in the election and I supported the other fellow. I for one am not very pleased that he is our President of our United States of America but I suppose you have already surmised that.

[Tom]

I hear this assumption often. Tom Friedman, whose opinions I respect, reiterated it this morning on Imus. Why do people feel this way? What exactly is going to happen throughout the Arab world? Are the terrorists around the world going to be so disheartened they will put their bombs away?

Here's how I see it. Right now, the arab world is a evil place devoid of freedom and hope, ruled by evil people with misguided "religious" belifs ( in the devil) and they rule with terror and torture, not law and majority.
By establishing governements that focus on people, the extremist wack-jobs will not be able to florish. Afghanistan - drive out the taliban and real people are filling the void, a real nation is growing there, despite the crap the left trys to spread aobut it. Granted, it is stil a battle, and will be for years. The medicine for terrorism is freedom, but the first aid is shock and awe. We need to find them and destroy them, and all that support them, then we turn our attentions towards showing those left how to be free.

An anology is the state of major cities in this country - especially those governed by democrates (NO is a perfect example). Dems let cities rot and die. They destroy pride and culture entitlement cultures, and the result is the miserable state on the american inner city. All the welfare moneu in the world will never stop poverty.
Contrast NO with NYC - hands down, New York is a city of pride and the people there are examples for the world. When 9-11 happened, it was NOT a demo-inflicted city of victims like NO was after Katrina. It was aproud city ready to fight back. NO was a city of crying babies looking for someone to take care of them.
Goverments affect us not in how they take of us, but how they allow us to take care of ourselves.

[ezpace]

need to read al lot of NELSON HUTBERG.and Antal Fekete....

demorepubs i call all of them politician BASTARDS...

SHould be mandatory..2 of each central banksterz..wallstreet ceo's ,, D.C politicians, INsurance execs , and D.C lobbyist lawyers get put in the ATlantic permanently after being tarred and feathered on payper view repeatedly.. problem would go away in a few years..

Ezpace = anarchisthorseplayer ;)