The Sinkable Harriet Miers

[Sojourner]

I'm kinda surprised no one has posted on Miers withdrawal ... here's an interesting [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102701056.html"]Washington Post[/url] column on the subject. If someone has posted and I missed it (quite possible) my apologies.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Oct 27 2005, 01:01 PM']I'm kinda surprised no one has posted on Miers withdrawal ... here's an interesting [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102701056.html"]Washington Post[/url] column on the subject. If someone has posted and I missed it (quite possible) my apologies. 
[right][snapback]772042[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well since you're new to Catholicism Abby you may not know

Catholics do not support withdrawal.


















On a serious note, let's see who's next on the buddy list

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 27 2005, 01:04 PM']Well since you're new to Catholicism Abby you may not know

Catholics do not support withdrawal.
[right][snapback]772046[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I figured SCOTUS nominees were exempt from that ...


[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 27 2005, 01:04 PM']On a serious note, let's see who's next on the buddy list
[right][snapback]772046[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

We should start up a poll. Big Al, maybe?

[Jaime]

If Gonzalez gets the next turn, I will not be able to post my feelings on the matter!!

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 27 2005, 01:09 PM']If Gonzalez gets the next turn, I will not be able to post my feelings on the matter!!
[right][snapback]772051[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Too many censored words? I feel the same way. I might have to move to Costa Rica in the event he's nominated.

[Iacobus]

I hear it is warm in Costa Rica.

Right now I am still in the Socialist Republic Of Grinnell Colllege. And as long as SSA isn't reencated, I will probly be here for another four years, if it is, we can be neighbors in Costa Rica.

I am so glad she dropped out. It almost makes me feel bad for Bush. A) He didn't know when to stop, aides said that his was upset this morning that she dropped, well duh, everyone knew, except Bush, that she was a loser from day 2. And B) Poltical Capital? I think Bushy better start thinking about a non-capital based system.

[Sojourner]

It is warm in Costa Rica, and right now quite rainy, from what I hear.

[argent_paladin]

[quote]We should start up a poll. Big Al, maybe?[/quote]
I think Sojourner meant Al Roker by "Big Al" (though he is not so big any more). hot stuff, I would think that a Couric-lover like you would like to see Al on the Court...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Oct 27 2005, 01:28 PM']I think Sojourner meant Al Roker by "Big Al" (though he is not so big any more). hot stuff, I would think that a Couric-lover like you would like to see Al on the Court...
[right][snapback]772070[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm betting not hot stuff would be a bigger fan of that ...

[jezic]

why would people be happy she withdrew?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jezic' date='Oct 27 2005, 01:56 PM']why would people be happy she withdrew?
[right][snapback]772095[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, many folks opposed her because her record on certain key issues is unclear or non-existent.

While that was a significant issue, I feel the most serious problem she had was that she had no qualifications. She'd never served as a judge. Apparently, the one thing recommending her was that she'd known GW for more than 10 years, and he apparently thinks good friend=good supreme court judge.

[Jaime]

She's also a tad unfamiliar with constitutional law. Not her cup of tea.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 27 2005, 02:25 PM']She's also a tad unfamiliar with constitutional law.  Not her cup of tea.
[right][snapback]772138[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yeah. When you have to "brush up" on that before confirmation hearings, it's just not a good sign.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Oct 27 2005, 02:04 PM'] I feel the most serious problem she had was that she had no qualifications. She'd never served as a judge.
[right][snapback]772112[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Although, I thought I'd heard that there have been other supreme court jusdges that had never been a judge before their election...

[HomeTeamFamily]

yea im all about conservatives on the supreme court, but she just seemed like not a very good choice.....someone with a bit more experience or a name that people at least recognize lol

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Oct 27 2005, 02:38 PM']Although, I thought I'd heard that there have been other supreme court jusdges  that had never been a judge before their election...
[right][snapback]772149[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Everyone currently on the bench was appointed from lower federal benches. Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was chosen from the Arizona bench. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist, however, was not a judge before his appointment. No non-judge has been nominated for the SCOTUS since Rehnquist in 1972.

Historically, there have been many justices who haven't had bench experience -- among them were John Marshall, Louis Brandeis, Robert Jackson, Earl Warren -- many of whom served quite honorably during their time on the court. There are decent arguments on both sides as to whether or not bench experience is a valuable asset for a justice.

But aside from her friendship with Bush and her gender, Miers had little to recommend her for this type of job -- not that she's totally unqualified, but still. President of the bar association? Head of a major firm? Chair of the lottery commission? The administration kept talking about how qualified she was, but these were the best things they could come up with. At least Rehnquist had been attorney general -- people had an idea of where he stood on issues. And many of the other non-judges who were appointed to the bench had backgrounds as politicians, so people had an idea of where they stood on the issues. Miers had no such record.

[jezic]

i think part of the reason why they wouldn't say where she stood on issues was because she was so conservative. They didn't want her to take so much fire from the dems before she had to.

i think that she was qualified and would have made a good justice. Granted i don't know a whole lot, but it seems like that.

The problem is who aren't the dems gonna jump on? The person that he appoints now will bear even heavier fire.

Are there still good conservative nominees?

Will any of them make it through?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jezic' date='Oct 27 2005, 03:19 PM']i think part of the reason why they wouldn't say where she stood on issues was because she was so conservative. They didn't want her to take so much fire from the dems before she had to.
[right][snapback]772168[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, if that's the case then the plan certainly backfired. She got the most criticism from conservative groups.

[toledo_jesus]

Rehnquist was top of his class at Stanford. If you are going to appoint someone with no judicial experience to the SC, it helps if they are exceptional. Ann Coulter wrote about this. I'm sure she's happy, she was pretty upset about Miers.


on a side note, I'll be attending the speech by the President in Norfolk tomorrow. should be interesting!

[Iacobus]

It wasn't the dems that killed her, it was the Christian Right and the Republican Base. They wanted someone more to the right in exchange for Roberts (viewed as) soft postion on gay rights. They got her instead. She might have been okay but for three reasons. A) No record on position. B) No real reasons to support her. C) It was viewed as cronyism, which, frankly, it was and most people thought it would hurt the GOP more (which it did) to nom a crony then a real person.

Also, Miers wouldn't have made a difference for the next few years. The big cases coming up, the toture and detainment type, will be filling the court's time for a while. Miers, in the intrest of, well, justice, would have to remove herself from those descisions due to her "closeness to Pres Bush." If you wanted a real justice, you don't want someone who is Bush's pal.

My thoughts? Who are they going to get? If they nom someone close again, even someone that is qualified, they will have to release documents, gasp! That will be a pain in the butt fight. Also, if they nom someone cronyish again, they have the same problem with them kind of having to recuse themselves from the major cases. There is a rumor going around that Miers wasn't Bush's first pick. Or second. He asked at least 2 people to take the seat before Miers and both refused because they didn't want to deal with the Senate hearings and they didn't think that being nomed by Bushy was in their historical intrests. Just a thought based on a rumor.