|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 4, 2005 11:49:59 GMT -5
What, no opinions on the President's personal attorney/Supreme Court nominee? Any chance she doesn't get confirmed? Is nominating a regular ol' attorney as opposed to a judge or a legal scholar a good idea? My answers to the last two questions: No and no. In related news, Drudge is making a big deal of of the fact that Miers answered yes to Question 1 on this survey. Does this mean anything? Is the far right actually going to care about this? I doubt there are many individuals out there who think homosexuals should be second-class citizens. Note she also refused to support a repeal of the Texas statute prohibiting sodomy which was recently struck down by the Supreme Court. Don't know if that's relevant either, but that's up for discussion. www.time.com/time/daily/docs/miersquest.pdf
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 4, 2005 12:06:45 GMT -5
The worst moment of Bush's presidency.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 4, 2005 13:45:31 GMT -5
I think I'm speachless more than anything else. I can't really wrap my mind around the reasoning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2005 14:09:56 GMT -5
I think the following tells us all we need to know about Ms. Miers. From David Furm in the National Review:
"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.'"
With all due respect to the president... yikes.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 4, 2005 15:59:31 GMT -5
I doubt there are many individuals out there who think homosexuals should be second-class citizens. Interesting point of view. I guess the Pope would be one of your exceptions as the Vatican is planning to exclude all gay men from becoming priests...even though they are required to be celibate anyway.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 4, 2005 15:59:58 GMT -5
The worst moment of Bush's presidency. WOW! That's quite a statement!
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 4, 2005 22:36:22 GMT -5
Interesting perspective from George Will: "Under the rubric of ``diversity'' -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can only be understood, empathized with and represented by a member of that group. The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who ``legislate from the bench.'' www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 4, 2005 23:12:36 GMT -5
Great link. I think Will gets the Supreme Court most of the time. My favorite paragraph from the article was:
"It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends."
Starting to doubt my previous assumption that Miers would be confirmed by a Republican caucus that rarely thinks for itself. Starting to look like this is an opportunity for folks like Frist to act like leaders/potential 2008 presidental nominees.
Anyone out there going to defend Harriet?
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 4, 2005 23:14:01 GMT -5
jersey, thanks for that. I clicked on your link and read Will's column. I found another interesting viewpoint of his:
"It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends."
The same comment could have been applied to Bush I and his appointment of Clarence Thomas -- and of course, it is how Bush and his team have filled most of the crucial jobs in government -- think Brownie, Chertoff, Wolfowitz, rumsfeld....
But as for the "categorical respresentational" idea? It would seem from the portion of WIll's column that you posted, that Will is suggesting a Supreme Court comprised of 9 white men would be just fine. With only 9 spots on the court we couldn't possibly have "categorical representation" for the ALL of the many groups that comprise the US... BUT, diversity on the court achieves two important goals.
The first is a greater range of viewpoints and perspectives resulting from people with wide ranging backgrounds. That factor alone significantly increases the opportunity for all views to be raised and considered and for more equitable judgements being made.
The second is a matter of perception, which I believe is equally important. IF the Supreme Court is to serve the function for which it was intended, "the people" must BELIEVE it is doing its best to be fair and to make balanced judgements. A court with greater diversity will provide more confidence to the American public that it is capable of understanding our widely diverse population, and of being fair -- that it is worthy of our trust.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 4, 2005 23:38:50 GMT -5
Interesting point of view. I guess the Pope would be one of your exceptions as the Vatican is planning to exclude all gay men from becoming priests...even though they are required to be celibate anyway. Think my above statement was too broad. I was just trying to say any politician/political party advocating a "no" answer to that question would be idiotic, politically speaking. Consider that the proponents of protecting marriage don't consider their actions discriminatory (though in the strict sense of the word they clearly are). To come out and openly admit a wish to discriminate would be groundbreaking and probably unpopular. For example, to answer that question with something like "I wish to change the laws of the United States and Texas so that homosexuals are forced to go to seperate schools" would be abhorrent to most of the general public.
|
|