If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Bush nominates Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 1025
    More: News  
•       •       •

17700 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2005 at 7:20 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1025 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-10-03 09:20:00 AM
There is no requirement for a justice nominee to be a judge to be appointed to the Supremem court, in fact many times they look outside the field to find a fresh persepctive.

I knew the catch word would be "crony" or "cronyism" the first time I heard it used twice in a minute this morning.

I wish all those of your threatening to move to Canada would finally do so. Pussies.
 
2005-10-03 09:20:49 AM
Tatsuma: That's really not... really not constitutional. That's law-making from the bench.

The problem is, these cases went all the way to the Supreme Court specifically *because* a case for constitutionality could be made either way. Rowe v. Wade, for instance, turned out to be decided because of the Constitution's "right to privacy". Would you care to guess how many times the world privacy appears in the Constitution? :)

Interesting that you would bring up the eminent domain ruling. That ruling was made by a court that had a majority of justices with prior judicial experience. Coincidentally to our discussion, Rehnquist, who has no prior judicial experience, was on the dissenting side of the issue -- the one most Farkers (from my observation) consider the "correct" side.
 
2005-10-03 09:20:57 AM
rose8199: Yes, I obviously hate women. I'm the biggest mysogynist ever!


Oooh, that sounds kinky...

//looks it up

damn... nevermind...
 
2005-10-03 09:21:30 AM
bipolar: Would you care to guess how many times the world privacy appears in the Constitution? :)

Ugh ... word, not world.
 
2005-10-03 09:21:54 AM
KyngNothing: //looks it up

damn... nevermind...



Yeah, too bad I didn't spell it correctly.
 
2005-10-03 09:22:08 AM
hey Some Bass Playing Guy

here you go: /i
live it. love it. use it

;p

/agrees with you
 
2005-10-03 09:22:49 AM
bipolar
Please reread my post. I specifically said Chief Justices. You even quoted it in a reply to that post. And as it turns out, I was mistaken about even that; Roberts will be the first Supreme Court Chief Justice with any judicial experience prior to being appointed to the Supreme Court.


President William Howard Taft was appointed to a federal circuit judge position in 1891 and then served as Chief Justice of the United States after being appointed by President Warren Harding.

 
2005-10-03 09:23:21 AM
bipolar:

Interesting that you would bring up the eminent domain ruling. That ruling was made by a court that had a majority of justices with prior judicial experience. Coincidentally to our discussion, Rehnquist, who has no prior judicial experience, was on the dissenting side of the issue -- the one most Farkers (from my observation) consider the "correct" side.

Yeah, but it seems that the actual ruling was the more "limited" legal ruling... they just said that, according to current law, that was the correct ruling... if they had struck it down, it would have been more "activist", and lawmaking from the bench... they specifically said that state and local laws could prohibit the practice, but that as they stood now, it was legal...
 
2005-10-03 09:23:52 AM
EmrysX: Look no further than Cheney.


He did say: "I dont care who is president under me".

Chilling words. The person actually in charge is avoiding the spotlight, and doing god-knows what.

And his distraction seems to be working overtime.....
 
2005-10-03 09:24:41 AM
Tatsuma: Then again, if an editorial in the NYT says: I want to vote for John Kerry, it'll be assumed that the NYT endorses Kerry, no?

Editorials in the paper are officially endorsed positions; the National Review column would be more akin to one of (the very conservative) David Brooks' columns for the NYT which appear semi-daily.

I don't believe David Frum represents the editorial board of the National Review; rather, he is someone they pay to write a column because they think he presents an interesting viewpoint.
 
2005-10-03 09:24:47 AM
rose8199: Just because she's a woman, doesn't mean she's a good nominee

Right.
I am not convinced that previous experience as a judge should me a qualification, simply because the epxerience may jade or taint a person.Maybe a fresh clean slate is better when it comes to interpreting the Consitution.
 
2005-10-03 09:25:34 AM
Tatsuma

great i got the whole system explained to me. career judges arent necessarily the best choice for the supreme court. some of the best in our history had none or almost no judicial experience. not having been on the bench of a lower court is an advantage in some aspects for a supreme court justice, as many authoritative decisions are wrongly decided, and someone who spent their career enforcing it may be reluctant to overturn it.

having said that, being a commisioner of a state lottery is not exactly the sort of resume that the rest of the non-judicial picks brought to the table. my initial impression is that this is a very poor pick and may even be rejected by the senate.
 
2005-10-03 09:25:56 AM
This is a brilliant move for W. She has no record, therefore she cannot be assailed on any specific ruling or point of law. She will only talk generally about what she will do in future at her confirmation hearings. By picking a loyalist with no record, the White House pre-empts any specific criticism.

That said, a nominee that has never been a judge? WTF? That would be like me applying to fly the space shuttle.
 
2005-10-03 09:26:14 AM
consdubya: Again, someone, please explain to me why a person who:

A: Has no judicial experience


Because nominating a judge from a lower court just robs that court of experience. And, frankly, she meets the job requirements - the question should by why *you* think you are qualified to add to those requirements.

B: Headed the search for the appointment themselves

That's kinda funny, but I don't really see what your point is. Do you think this fact should disqualify her? Do you think it lessens her suitability? Where are you heading, son?

C: Is a member of the current administration

She's legal counsel. It's not like she's POTUS, VP, or a Cabinet member. Again, where are you going with this? You keep coming up with things that, frankly, don't need justification, and you're asking us to justify them. Why don't you tell us why you think they have to be justified?

,is a good choice for a SCOTUS judge. Without citing precedent, and without considering what political party they come from.
 
2005-10-03 09:26:25 AM
Alberto Gonzalez is waiting in the wings...

/thinks he's a chump
 
2005-10-03 09:26:32 AM
Professor_UNIX: President William Howard Taft was appointed to a federal circuit judge position in 1891 and then served as Chief Justice of the United States after being appointed by President Warren Harding.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I missed that on the wiki page.
 
2005-10-03 09:26:37 AM
Hmmmm... I read all these opinions and ask myself why Bush didn't just reach right into Fark for his next nomination. So many of us seem to be so Omniscient and Infallible. Kinda like how Bush sees himself and his friends.

I grow fatigued.
 
2005-10-03 09:26:40 AM
IMhO this is a gambit, first Harriet Miers, essentially a family member. Could have been his wife or one of his daughters. Obvious rejection. "Well I offered you a woman." Then up comes Gonzales, the one Bush really wants.

Best response, call the gambit. Show the play for what it is and then reject them both.
 
2005-10-03 09:26:43 AM
"Formerly Bush's personal lawyer in Texas"

I don't need to read any more to know that her soul is wanted in hell.
 
2005-10-03 09:28:02 AM
The fact that she is a stealth-nominee has nothing to do with any potential Democratic opposition. It has everything to do with hosing the fundies, once again.

And they'll fall for it, once again. Because they're very, very, very dumb.

/RvW will never be overturned
//if you don't understand that, you are hopeless
 
2005-10-03 09:28:03 AM
KyngNothing: Yeah, but it seems that the actual ruling was the more "limited" legal ruling... they just said that, according to current law, that was the correct ruling... if they had struck it down, it would have been more "activist", and lawmaking from the bench... they specifically said that state and local laws could prohibit the practice, but that as they stood now, it was legal...

It appears I have a different interpretation of the Fifth Amendment than the majority of the justices, then :) In my opinion, the dissenting view is not an activist position; it is the correct interpretation per the reading of the amendment.
 
2005-10-03 09:28:16 AM
Tatsuma: Then again, if an editorial in the NYT says: I want to vote for John Kerry, it'll be assumed that the NYT endorses Kerry, no?

No. If the NYT runs an official endorsement of Kerry, then it'll be assumed that the NYT endorses Kerry. If some random op-ed piece cheerleads for him, that indicates nothing about the position of the paper.
 
2005-10-03 09:28:21 AM
"Formerly Bush's personal lawyer in Texas"


Well then, i would imagine she is very experienced in the area of failed business ventures.
 
2005-10-03 09:28:45 AM
lefande: Ok, same question, where are you licensed to practice law?

So, everyone that has an issue with this has to be a lawyer to have their opinion be valid?

Point is: She is a crony with no experience qualifying her for the highest court in the land.

/not an attorney, but knows a lot of law.
 
2005-10-03 09:28:59 AM
Listening to NPR chat with Pat Leahy this morning; he revealed that Miers's name had come up a couple times during the meetings between Demo senators and the President about possible nominees. He then said, basically, that the Demos were the only ones naming names. Ergo, the Demos were floating Miers as a possible nominee. Bush might've finessed the filibuster.

/Suspects that Bush is hoping for a filibuster so he can bring in a Borkesque nominee for Round 2.
 
2005-10-03 09:29:39 AM


Fundies?
 
2005-10-03 09:29:56 AM
The POTUS picks for the SCOTUS from the lint collected round his scrotus.

Just popped into my head after reading all acronyms.
 
2005-10-03 09:30:00 AM
smeegle: I am not convinced that previous experience as a judge should me a qualification, simply because the epxerience may jade or taint a person.Maybe a fresh clean slate is better when it comes to interpreting the Consitution.

It would help to look at previous justices who had experience versus those who did not, and try to determine what effect their previous judicial experience had on their success as a SCOTUS justice. There are too many variables to get a highly accurate measure, but it'd be a start. I for one know nothing on the matter.
 
2005-10-03 09:30:24 AM
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Then a state goes on to define public use as increasing the tax base/potential of an area...

Past cases had allowed areas to use eminent domain against blighted areas to "refurbish" it... so why not a "depressed" town attempting to better itself...

I dunno, it just seemed like a continuance of prior cases, and existing laws instead of a radical strike...

//IANAL
 
2005-10-03 09:30:51 AM
Glad to see there's about a half-dozen people here posting from other than knee-jerk dem/rep positions. That's about 6 more than usually make there way into political threads ;)

Gotta go for now, I'll try to stop in later. Thanks for the fun discussion.
 
2005-10-03 09:31:37 AM
Here's her findlaw page

Nothing much there except she's been on a lot of boards and such. Her specialty is antitrust and trade. Hmm, possibly one to overturn Kelo?
 
2005-10-03 09:32:19 AM
Smells like cronyism to me. Cronyism designed with a trap door, more than likely she's a sacrifice so when he appoints another, that one will look like gold (in wolf's clothing).

GA calls someone a Troll! How very centrist.
 
2005-10-03 09:32:21 AM
bipolar: there

Seems today is my day for typos. "Their", not there. OK, gone for real now :)
 
2005-10-03 09:33:24 AM
Jaboobinator: That said, a nominee that has never been a judge? WTF? That would be like me applying to fly the space shuttle.

No, you do not meet the job requirements to fly the space shuttle. She does meet the requirements to serve on the Court. So, really, it's not like that at all, is it?
 
2005-10-03 09:33:53 AM
I wonder, since I have such a difficult time trusting this administration, if this isn't a ruse.

The Dems need to be extra careful, I think they are being played.
I have nothing against her, I don't know much about her but I can't help but think there is way more going on than meets the eye.
 
2005-10-03 09:34:02 AM
I love the press pictures of this woman. She looks like she's the mom of one of the guys from the Insane Clown Posse.
 
2005-10-03 09:34:02 AM
Sloth_DC: Because nominating a judge from a lower court just robs that court of experience. And, frankly, she meets the job requirements - the question should by why *you* think you are qualified to add to those requirements.

Robs lower courts of experience. Nice one. Try again. Furthermore, I am not setting any requirements, I am asking questions. You seem to be razzled by them.

B: Headed the search for the appointment themselves

That's kinda funny, but I don't really see what your point is. Do you think this fact should disqualify her? Do you think it lessens her suitability? Where are you heading, son?


Yes, I do think this should disqualify her. I think she may have had some bias. That is where I am heading. She nominated herself. I dont think judges should nominate themselves. Do you?

C: Is a member of the current administration

She's legal counsel. It's not like she's POTUS, VP, or a Cabinet member. Again, where are you going with this? You keep coming up with things that, frankly, don't need justification, and you're asking us to justify them. Why don't you tell us why you think they have to be justified?


She is a member of this administration, and is close to the policies and actions of the administration. That means she is not independant from the administration.

These issues need to be justified because they reek of cronyism and corruption. Those are bad things.
 
2005-10-03 09:34:36 AM


She looks like she got the Alice Cooper eye liner tatoo
 
2005-10-03 09:35:43 AM
Start the next civil war and get it over with you dumbasses.
 
2005-10-03 09:36:59 AM
Litterbox: Point is: She is a crony with no experience qualifying her for the highest court in the land.

1) Being a friend of the president is not a disqualification for the job. And you don't sound smarter when you use the word "crony" instead of "friend" or "associate".

2) She meets the job requirements. Why do you feel qualified to add to those requirements?

/not an attorney, but knows a lot of law.

That's really nice.
 
2005-10-03 09:37:32 AM
Songbird:

What are the odds that she will be called an extremist, radical, outside the mainstream, etc, etc, etc...?


No, she's just going to be called unqualified. This is the "Brownie is doing a heck of a job" of Supreme Court nominations.
 
2005-10-03 09:37:49 AM
rose8199: In all seriousness, I'm always glad for diversity on the courts, but it's upsetting to think that a better potential nominee might have been passed over simply because they were not the correct gender or ethnicity.

i'll have to agree on that

but honestly, we dont really know a whole lot about the nominee yet

as for everyone screaming about her not being a judge already....that is a more recent trend
the majority of supreme court justices in the history of the country were not previously judges

William Rehnquist for example.
 
2005-10-03 09:37:53 AM
RabidDog
Why can't they pick someone that actually has judical experience?

/thinking of selling up and moving to Canada.


Hey! If you don't like American, you can Giiiiiit out



/i keed i keed
 
2005-10-03 09:38:27 AM
Yeah... but does Laura know George is tapping Harriet?

/Clinton #2?

//Man... she scary lookin'
 
2005-10-03 09:38:50 AM
Headso:

I don't think anyone needs a talking point memo to come to the conclusion that a 60yo woman who has never married could be a lesbo


I should have started a new paragraph. That little gem was aimed outwards at all the people defending someone who has been connected to Bush, for over 10 years, as being ok and non-partisan because you don't need to be a judge to get on the SCOTUS and she is a woman.

Sloth_DC: Again, where are you going with this?

She was his deputy chief of staff. FTFA- "Miers was promoted to deputy chief of staff in June 2003." I'm sorry, she is connected. Most likely sleeping with Laura. There is no way she could be impartial. He might as well nominate Rove.
 
2005-10-03 09:38:52 AM
bipolar: Would you care to guess how many times the world privacy appears in the Constitution? :)

Which is exactly why a right to privacy exists.

The constitution exists to limit the power of the government, there is no mention of the government's right to infringe upon my privacy, which is why a right to privacy exists.

May scholars believe that the right to privacy exists in the 14th Amendment, specifially here:

....nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....

But I've always been more inclined to believe the right to privacy exists in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Basically, if a right or power of the government isn't established within the constitution, it doesn't exist.

I'm fully aware of the broadness of this opinion, such as drug laws and such, but I still believe this was part of the intent of the framers.

BTW, the words machine gun don't exist in the constitution either, but wingnuts seem to think they have a right to own them. And before you say "they didn't exist yet", I'll say this. I have no problem with every citizen owning a black powder rifle.

/not really a gun control supporter
//hates it when ignoramouses interpret the constitution
 
2005-10-03 09:38:56 AM
I'd like to know the average age and education level of everyone posting "BUT SHE'S NOT A JUDGE!!!"
 
2005-10-03 09:39:20 AM
Immaculate_Misconception:

Excellent post Tatsuma.

Thanks

Mark my words, she'll never be confirmed. I can think of half a dozen pretty ugly stories about the lady from my days in Texas.

Do you think you could fill me in/dig up a few links?

My hunch is that she's a sacrifice candidate. Once the Democrats blow their load in blocking her they'll have no steam left to fight his true pick. Not that I have any guesses about who that may be, but IMHO if the next choice has a pulse they'll appear more qualified than this hack.

Yeah, that would really make more sense... I think you're on to something.

bipolar:

The problem is, these cases went all the way to the Supreme Court specifically *because* a case for constitutionality could be made either way. Rowe v. Wade, for instance, turned out to be decided because of the Constitution's "right to privacy". Would you care to guess how many times the world privacy appears in the Constitution? :)

I don't want to argue with you, but in the case of Marijuana & Interstate Commerce, could you please point out to me WHERE the ruling is constitutional? Or the one about the reporters having to divulge their sources?

Interesting that you would bring up the eminent domain ruling. That ruling was made by a court that had a majority of justices with prior judicial experience. Coincidentally to our discussion, Rehnquist, who has no prior judicial experience, was on the dissenting side of the issue -- the one most Farkers (from my observation) consider the "correct" side.

I agree. I never said that they were always right either...
 
2005-10-03 09:39:32 AM
For those of you crying "cronyism" and "she's not even a judge!":

Consider John Marshall, one of the greatest Supreme Court Justices. A devoted Federalist, he served in several different capacities in the Adams administration, including Secretary of State. He was one of the "midnight appointments" at the close of Adams's administration, to be the 4th Chief Justice. No judicial experience; came from a position close to the President. And was definitely "his own man." Oh, and a pretty damn good Federalist to boot.

He is, of course, one of many, many Justices who were never judges before serving on SCOTUS.

/Doesn't know much about Miers, but is certain that giving absolutist evaluations at this point is just stupid.
 
2005-10-03 09:39:35 AM
consdubya: These issues need to be justified because they reek of cronyism and corruption.

PLease point me to the apparent corruption. I seem to be missing it. Are you saying that Bush's lawyer is paying him off to get the SC nominee?
 
Displayed 50 of 1025 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report