|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 18, 2005 16:47:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by highlandparkhoya on Oct 19, 2005 4:07:51 GMT -5
We should take Manny's opinion on this one.
Manny Miranda, head of a conservative coalition called The Third Branch Conference, said Miers was "the most unqualified choice" for the high court since Lyndon Johnson tried to make Abe Fortas chief justice in 1968.
"(Bush) said he would name someone like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. We thought he meant someone with a clear judicial record on particular issues," Miranda said.
Vice President Dick Cheney rushed to try to bolster the right flank, telling the Rush Limbaugh radio show, "I'm confident that she has a conservative judicial philosophy that you'd be comfortable with, Rush."
"Trust me," he added.
Some of the concern was about Miers having given money to both Republicans and Democrats, including $1,000 to Democrat Al Gore's presidential campaign in 1988.
In more recent years, Miers has regularly contributed to Republicans.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 19, 2005 8:38:40 GMT -5
Vice President Dick Cheney: "Trust me," Priceless!
|
|
|
Post by HoyaDestroya on Oct 20, 2005 10:38:00 GMT -5
doesn't look good for her...
Barely concealing their irritation during a 35-minute news conference at the Capitol, Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) called the lobbying on Miers's behalf "chaotic," and said the answers she provided Monday to a lengthy questionnaire were inadequate. "The comments I have heard range from incomplete to insulting," Leahy said.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,224
|
Post by hoyarooter on Oct 20, 2005 12:44:11 GMT -5
Yeah, that was remarkable, and can't bode well for her. Does someone with a better memory than me recall the last USSC nominee who drew such a negative bipartisan response from key members of the Senate?
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Oct 20, 2005 12:56:02 GMT -5
No. But there hasn't been a nominee in my lifetime so lacking in terms of qualifications. I feel bad for Miers but I can't believe no one saw this coming. Why shouldn't all nominees to the High Court be among the best legal minds in the country? Why does the President expect the Senate and the American people to settle? I think the gang of 15 should sit down and hammer out a list of 50 acceptable nominees and forward it to the Bush. Heck, you could expand the list to 500 and it still wouldn't include someone as lackluster as Miers.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Oct 23, 2005 21:46:21 GMT -5
Having just finished perusing the foregoing posts, it appears that Dubya may unwittingly have become that uniter (rather than divider) that he proclaimed himself to be back in the day.
I have to agree that this is not about Miers' lack of prior judicial experience. As noted above, it's about the absence of anything in her curriculum vitae that suggests a superior competence in constitutional law.
There are more than a few out there who like to smugly and self-assuredly insist that "I know how to interpret the Constitution - I know what it says...," but these same people would assuredly find themselves as village idiot designate if ever they were afforded the opportunity to do so by being nominated to a seat on the Supreme Court. The law clerks of the other Justices could argue circles around them.
There's more to being qualified to sit on the Supreme Court that just being a lawyer. While prior judicial experience is just one item in the broader set of potential qualifications, the onus is definitely on this Administration and Miers to identify and press whatever alternative qualifications she may have.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 23, 2005 22:56:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HoyaDestroya on Oct 24, 2005 9:46:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HoyaDestroya on Oct 24, 2005 12:44:30 GMT -5
just to prove my 'inside connections'... the White House Bulletin (an inside the beltway publication not related in anyway to the actual WH)... published this just this afternoon
„T Bush Fans Flames Of Krauthammer Exit Theory For Miers. Last Friday, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a piece suggesting that the best way for the White House to extricate itself from the political awkwardness on the Miers Supreme Court nomination is to allow the inevitable irreconcilable differences over documents to develop, acknowledge an insurmountable impasse, withdraw the nomination and start over with a new nominee. Speaking this morning after a Cabinet meeting, the President was asked by reporters about the state of the Miers nomination. Bush replied, ¡§Harriet Miers is -- is an extraordinary woman. She was a legal pioneer in Texas. She was ranked one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States on a consistent basis. She is -- look, I understand that people want to know more about her, and that's the way the process should work.¡¨ The President shifted gears, though, and added, ¡§Recently, requests, however, have been made by Democrats and Republicans about paperwork and -- out of this White House that would make it impossible for me and other presidents to be able to make sound decisions. They may ask for paperwork about the decision-making process, what her recommendations were, and that would breach very important confidentiality. And it's a red line I'm not willing to cross. People can learn about Harriet Miers through hearings, but we are not going to destroy this business about people being able to walk into the Oval Office and say, ¡¥Mr. President, here's my advice to you, here's what I think is important.¡¦ And that's not only important for this president, it's important for future presidents.¡¨ The President concluded, however, ¡§Harriet Miers is a fine person, and I expect her to have a good, fair hearing on Capitol Hill.¡¨ The President¡¦s remarks and their close association with the Krauthammer theory were noted in the Senate this morning. A Senate GOP source not only pointed out the parallels, but also noted it follows on the heels of Washington Times reporting over the weekend ¡V denied by the White House ¡V that ¡§White House political director Sara Taylor made phone calls to select conservative leaders. In those calls, according to one recipient and another conservative familiar with other, similar calls, Miss Taylor asked advice on how to go about withdrawing the nomination if they were to decide to do so.¡¨
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 25, 2005 9:35:29 GMT -5
Harriet Miers needs to do the honorable thing and withdraw her name.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 25, 2005 18:32:12 GMT -5
I am not sure that withdrawal is honorable. She's given Bush her word that she'd serve as his nominee to the SCOTUS. These nominations are not subject to the whims of the "Christian" right, and I don't think the nominee himself or herself should withdraw, unless there is obvious criminality in his/her record. In this case, the issue is basic lack of qualifications to serve in most courts as a judge, much less the Supreme Court.
I'd kind of like to see her get an up/down vote in the spirit of the Gang of 13 from this summer. Anything else would represent Republican unwillingness to uphold that agreement, which would be somewhat ironic considering it was the Democrats who took the heat for alleged obstructionism. Additionally, I think it is important that Bush be publicly embarassed by this nomination by seeing it fail in Committee. There's simply no excuse for this cronyism, and it is high time that he suffers the consequences.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 26, 2005 12:15:02 GMT -5
Jersey, you want to see Meirs proceed so, among other reasons you stated, Bush will be embarassed. I want to see her withdraw to save Bush further embarassment. Bush campaigned on a promise to nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas. With this nomination he reneged on that promise. He is now being embarassed because of his blunder. It's time for Miers to recognize that and to gracefully withdraw.
|
|
Bahstin
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 624
|
Post by Bahstin on Oct 27, 2005 8:20:42 GMT -5
To answer the thread's subject question: No. www.cnn.com
|
|
|
Post by HoyaDestroya on Oct 27, 2005 8:35:32 GMT -5
withdrawl as promised... Bush blames it on Senate document request.... I told you so!
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 27, 2005 9:27:09 GMT -5
I was off by one week on my prediction earlier in this thread. I am glad she did the honorable thing.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 27, 2005 21:14:28 GMT -5
Jersey, you want to see Meirs proceed so, among other reasons you stated, Bush will be embarassed. I want to see her withdraw to save Bush further embarassment. Bush campaigned on a promise to nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas. With this nomination he reneged on that promise. He is now being embarassed because of his blunder. It's time for Miers to recognize that and to gracefully withdraw. The right wing of this country has been fooled into thinking that he made such a promise about nominating Scalia and Thomas. (Reference: mediamatters.org/items/200510130005)"BASH: A longtime top Bush aide confirms to CNN Mr. Bush didn't actually publicly pledge a Scalia or a Thomas, but they made no effort to clarify. To conservative activists, it was code. They expected Mr. Bush to pick justices with clear records showing they'd move the court right." That said, I think they'll capitalize on this opportunity to nominate a credentialed conservative.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 28, 2005 2:40:02 GMT -5
The right wing of this country has been fooled into thinking that he made such a promise about nominating Scalia and Thomas. (Reference: mediamatters.org/items/200510130005)"BASH: A longtime top Bush aide confirms to CNN Mr. Bush didn't actually publicly pledge a Scalia or a Thomas, but they made no effort to clarify. To conservative activists, it was code. They expected Mr. Bush to pick justices with clear records showing they'd move the court right." That said, I think they'll capitalize on this opportunity to nominate a credentialed conservative. Was it only the right wing of this country that was fooled, or the majority of the American voting public which put Bush in office? For the record, here's what transpired during the Presidential debates last fall: MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why? BUSH: I'm not telling. (LAUGHTER) I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me. (LAUGHTER) I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States. Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick. I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words under God in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America. And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution. And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution. Thank you. GIBSON: Senator Kerry, a minute and a half. KERRY: Thank you, Charlie. A few years ago when he came to office, the president said -- these are his words -- What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts. And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. So you get a pretty good sense of where he's heading if he were to appoint somebody. Now, here's what I believe. I don't believe we need a good conservative judge, and I don't believe we need a good liberal judge. I don't believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either side. I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you're reading a good judicial decision. What I want to find, if I am privileged to have the opportunity to do it -- and the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race, ladies and gentlemen. The future of things that matter to you -- in terms of civil rights, what kind of Justice Department you'll have, whether we'll enforce the law. Will we have equal opportunity? Will women's rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman's right to choose be protected? These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law."
|
|