lala Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 I am a bit confused over whether this Harriet Miers is a good thing or not. Here's what is confusing ... Bush recommended her .. so I expected to see all of the conservatives jumping up for joy .. but that is not really the case. I did a bit of searching around and found that the heavy duty conservatives @ Townhall.com seem to be a bit pissed off: http://www.townhall.com/blogs/c-log/J%20Garthwaite/story/2005/10/03/159236.html And ... on my side .. there doesn't seem to be much joy .. so what's the deal with this chick? lala Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevorum Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 lala, welcome to the forum. There are lots of opinions about the nominee, but regardless of one's personal views, don't you think it is a mite discourteous to refer to her as a "chick"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greying Beaver Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Hi, Lala. Townhall.com proves that there are those who would complain if they were to be hung with a new rope (New ropes stretch - a lot!). That forum is just like all other forums, including this one (but to a lesser extent here). Betcha there are those who would block George Washington's confirmation to anything because he was a slave holder. Politics as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie_Scouter Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Welcome, lala. Yes, as Trevorum noted, "chick" might be considered discurteous in some circles, so please use the more universally accepted term, "babe" That aside, yeah, I'm finding this whole situation with Miers pretty interesting. It's been pretty quiet here on the topic. In a previous discussion where there was the threat of a Democratic filibuster over a court appointment, many here commented that the Presiden't choice should be allowed the courtesy of a full Senate vote. While things have yet to really get underway with her appointment hearings, it'll be pretty interesting to see her get attacked by members of her own party, who are desparately scurrying to cover their butts with the midterm elections coming up. Funny, when known conservatives are placed in this position, the conservatives in Congress are content to say that the appointees personal views are out of bounds, but with this one, suddenly, they have a lot of interest. She seems to be ticking off people on both sides of the aisle, so that in itself would tend to have me vote "yes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schleining Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 She's a Yes vote from me. First things First... Forums are not the gospel Truth and full of opinion.. and opinions are like feet... everyone has them and some of them stink. Second..as long as the Communist News Network (CNN) does not like her... She automatically gets a yes vote from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperParatus Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunt Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 This nomination causes problems for people on the right, on the left, and in the middle. On the right, the problem is that Miers is a far cry from the kind of Scalia-like nominee the right (and especially the Christian right) has been wanting. There is a list of strong candidates who have been mentioned for the position, and Miers isn't on it. It isn't clear that she'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is what many on the right would like. Rather, it appears that she is more of a business-friendly nominee--it makes those who are conservative primarily on social issues feel betrayed. But are they really going to break ranks and vote against her if Bush won't back down? On the left, liberals are hesitant to criticize her too much, because they REALLY don't want those same Scalia-like nominees. Obviously, any Bush nominee is going to be a Republican with views more or less like his--this one seems unlikely to be a strong conservative leader, which might be as much as liberals could hope for. So, they are keeping somewhat cool, because they fear somebody worse. Also, they are enjoying the Republican infighting, which is refreshing for a change. In the middle, somebody trying to honestly evaluate this nominee would have to recognize that she is grossly underqualified for the job. I heard one pundit say that she wouldn't have been on any lawyer's list of the top 1000 candidates for the post, and I basically agree. No judicial experience. Very little courtroom experience. Almost no exposure to constitutional issues. No publications of note. Fairly minimal government service before coming to DC. Too closely aligned personally with the President. It would be a big stretch to nominate such a person even for a Court of Appeals position. If this job were being filled by applications and review by an impartial reviewer, this resume wouldn't even get you an interview. Would I personally vote for confirmation if I were in the Senate? Maybe, but it would be for purely political reasons. I now think there is maybe a 35% likelihood that Miers will withdraw her name from consideration for some vaguely stated reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperParatus Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firstpusk Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 ...and how many on that list had their license to practice law suspended twice for non-payment of dues? Yes, she is the most competent person Bush could find to fill this seat. Tells you alot about the president and a bit more about his apologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndaigler Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 No, thanks. There are better choices - for the right, for the left, and for objective non-partisans. jd What's this latest goo about her actions during her reign as lottery guru in TX?? And some conference call amongst thought leaders of the religious right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahuna Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 I don't think most of the opposition to Miers is worth a hill of beans. Obviously, Bush knows her pretty well and understands her legal views. Some might call it cronyism, but why did JFK select Bobby to be his Atty General? He knew what the guy would do. I do agree that the more liberals who don't like her, the better I like her , but I think the conservatives are just being jerks. Nobody ever knows what a justice will do after being on the Court for a few years. The rarified air in those chambers have a way of doing things to people. All I care about in a justice is an ability to read the plain language of the U.S. Constitution (most of them can't) and try to determine what a law means rather than what they think it should be (most of them don't). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Let's see ... Never been a judge (just like Renquist) Does have strong religious views (believes Bush is God). I say go for it! Actually, since I just observe on this (no one will ask me for my vote on this) I have not really followed it closely. But, I'll miss Sandy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster7 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Kahuna, I agree 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 She most definitely is NOT a 'babe'. That said, I would have supported her right after the nomination. Now I'm not sure - the lack of experience is troubling. She clearly does NOT possess the intellect of Roberts. And clearly, there were much more qualified candidates out there that Bush didn't select. But then, qualifications don't seem to count for much when selecting cronies. I was really hoping for a good followup to Roberts. Oh well... At least it's entertaining to watch the Republicans eat each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 "I do agree that the more liberals who don't like her, the better I like her " Ironically I think the main reason some conservatives don't her like is because some Democrats do. I mean if she was on the Democrat's OK list, there must be something wrong with her. Like Acco, I frankly don't know enough about her to have an opinion. I would have to agree with Kahuna. All I want is a Judge that will ojectively decide a case based on what the law says and the facts presented and arguments made at the time of the case and not impose their own ideology. There can't be a litmus test as to how one would vote on a particular issue. My personal views are that the last two court nominees provide better insight to the real George Bush as opposed to the image his handlers would like is core supporters to see. I don't believe he's as socially conservative as folks have been led to believe. His Vice President has acknowledged support for the idea people should be able to chose their own partners in life regardless of gender. I've read his mother is Pro-choice. And there is a difference between personally being against the idea of abortion and determining if the state can legally outlaw abortion under current law. Since none of us have a direct vote, this is one we have to leave up to those that have been elected to decide, which is one reason I lose sleep. SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now