Harriet Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination

[ShullsM]

I have often thought, it would just be a matter of time since all of this began, until Ms. Miers withdrew. First, of all, I did not think that she was as qualified a candidate as Bush could have chosen. I did love the fact that the conservatives were so angry about this nomination. I think perhaps the next nominee could be Pope Benedict XVI as to calm conservative's nerves...

I'm very intersted to see who Bush nominates, and the knock-down-drag-out that will ensue afterwards in Congress. Go gett'em boys.

Yes, now things shall get interesting. I'm not too surprised that Miers withdrew. She just didn't seem right....no pun intended....for the position.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Er, no. I said it might eventually lead to them making a decision that you actually disagree with. That hypothetical decision is replacing the Constitution with the Bible. I assumed AlbqOwl would find that decision unacceptable, so I used it to illustrate a slippery slope.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "blindly", but when someone says they want their leaders to fight for conservative/liberal values, I get the impression they are strictly conservative/liberal. Personally, I agree with conservatives on gun control and the economy for the most part, but I have a hard time making the same conclusions on several social issues without using the Bible. Especially on homosexuals. But maybe it's just me.

Conservative is a label I wear proudly. It stands for traditional values of personal freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution, smaller government that does only what cannot be done more efficiently and effectively by the private sector, lower taxes, property ownership as an unalienable right, ability of communities to create an environment with standards satisfying to their citizens, devotion to family and a culture of life, security in our persons and property, empowering people to achieve their dreams, accountability, accepting the consequences for the choices we make, virtue of excellence in all things, daring to dream and aspire to greatness in all things, and peace through strength.

And Conservatives want judges who will judge according to the letter and intent of the law and who will not presume to decide that the law should be different than the letter and intent.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Conservative is a label I wear proudly. It stands for traditional values of personal freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution,

But conservatives want to keep marijuana illegal.

smaller government that does only what cannot be done more efficiently and effectively by the private sector,

I thought limited government was more a libertarian ideal than conservative. Else why did Bush try to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage?

property ownership as an unalienable right

But thanks to conservative judges approving eminent domain, the government can bulldoze your home and replace it with a Wal Mart.

ability of communities to create an environment with standards satisfying to their citizens, devotion to family and a culture of life, security in our persons and property, empowering people to achieve their dreams, accountability, accepting the consequences for the choices we make, virtue of excellence in all things, daring to dream and aspire to greatness in all things, and peace through strength.

Those goals aren't exclusive to conservatives. Everyone wants security in our persons and property, aspire to greatness, etc. The only argument is over the best way to achieve those goals. The keyword is ability.

And Conservatives want judges who will judge according to the letter and intent of the law and who will not presume to decide that the law should be different than the letter and intent.

That's fair, I'm sure liberals want that too.

 

[AlbqOwl]

But conservatives want to keep marijuana illegal.

Some do. Some don't. I don't see marijuana as an issue of ideology.


I thought limited government was more a libertarian ideal than conservative. Else why did Bush try to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage?

Limited government is a conservative ideal which most Libertarians hold. I say this speaking as a Libertarian. The traditional marriage is also a conservative ideal worthy of preservation. So-called 'gay marriage' would have changed the definition of marriage and that is unacceptable to most conservatives who see a threat from liberal judges on that issue. When a word can mean anything, it means nothing.

But thanks to conservative judges approving eminent domain, the government can bulldoze your home and replace it with a Wal Mart.

That wasn't conservative judges ruling on Kelo vs New London. That was pure liberalism in action and it was wrong. Conservatives almost universally oppose that decision and want judges who will not only reverse it, but ensure it won't happen again.

Those goals aren't exclusive to conservatives. Everyone wants security in our persons and property, aspire to greatness, etc. The only argument is over the best way to achieve those goals. The keyword is ability.

Basically individual conservatives and liberals do want the same things: freedom, prosperity, security, a clean and beautiful environment, etc. etc. etc. The difference between the two ideologies is how they are accomplished plus some differences in what is virtue.

That's fair, I'm sure liberals want that too.

Well I would say you are conservative in your views when it comes to judges, then. Liberals actually mostly want judges who will legislate from the bench. It is their last hope since they can't get what they want by winning elections lately.

 

[shuamort]

Well I would say you are conservative in your views when it comes to judges, then. Liberals actually mostly want judges who will legislate from the bench. It is their last hope since they can't get what they want by winning elections lately.

And some conservatives want judges to legislate from the bench as well. Roe V Wade being overturned should be done by the legislature and not the courts. Sticking a justice in there to overturn it would be the exact same type of judicial activism.

 

[AlbqOwl]

And some conservatives want judges to legislate from the bench as well. Roe V Wade being overturned should be done by the legislature and not the courts. Sticking a justice in there to overturn it would be the exact same type of judicial activism.

I think most conservatives would agree with you; however, now that SCOTUS has ruled on this as an issue of right to privacy, I think it will take a SCOTUS ruling to return it to the states where it should have stayed in the first place. The only other out would be a Constitutional Amendment and given the diversity of opinion on this issue, I don't think that would happen. I would like for it to be left to each state, or even each community to decide.

 

[TurtleDude]

And some conservatives want judges to legislate from the bench as well. Roe V Wade being overturned should be done by the legislature and not the courts. Sticking a justice in there to overturn it would be the exact same type of judicial activism.

that's rather stupid. the only way for a legislature to overturn a supreme court decision is a constitutional amendment. abortion should have been legalized at the state level not by judicial fiat but since it was, judicial action should be used to strike down judicial fiat

overturning poorly written decisions is not judicial activism. the left considers precedent the rule while we consider the constitution the basis

 

[Binary_Digit]

The traditional marriage is also a conservative ideal worthy of preservation. So-called 'gay marriage' would have changed the definition of marriage and that is unacceptable to most conservatives who see a threat from liberal judges on that issue. When a word can mean anything, it means nothing.

It doesn't matter if the word means nothing, it's the concept of marriage that's important. If we started calling heterosexual marriage "civil unions" would that undermine the Christian spirit of marriage? No, because words are just sounds and symbols we use to communicate ideas. Do you disagree with civil unions for homosexuals? There's really no difference, except in the wording.

That wasn't conservative judges ruling on Kelo vs New London. That was pure liberalism in action and it was wrong. Conservatives almost universally oppose that decision and want judges who will not only reverse it, but ensure it won't happen again.

I researched that on Wikipedia and it appears you are mostly right, and I was mostly wrong.

John Paul Stevens - liberal
Anthony Kennedy - moderate
David Souter - conservative
Stephen Breyer - liberal
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - liberal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London#The_Court.27s_decision

My apologies for blaming that on conservatives, and :moon: to those five individuals.

Well I would say you are conservative in your views when it comes to judges, then. Liberals actually mostly want judges who will legislate from the bench. It is their last hope since they can't get what they want by winning elections lately.

As a general rule, I don't think judges should just interpret the law like robots, without considering what knowledge mankind has gained since the law was enacted. There are some laws I would like to see overturned by the SC, specifically the drug laws, so if they would legislate from the bench on that issue and overturn them I think that would be a good thing. I'm sure conservatives have similar examples (Roe v. Wade). So maybe wanting judges to rule from the bench isn't just a liberal ideal. :2razz:

 

[Stu Ghatze]

This is not good news for democrats actually, thats why I LIKE IT! THe conservtives put enough pressure on Bush to make SURE there is NOT another Judge SOUTER deal.

Not only that but there ARE senate repuiblicans LUSTING for the "nuclear option" to settle the score once, & for all with the liberal democrats who have "BASTARIZED" the whole judicial nominee process!

Even John McCain can go take a hike, along with his gang of 14 who care only about what the liberals think of them when they are out together after senate session sharing their cocktails with!

 

[AlbqOwl]

It doesn't matter if the word means nothing, it's the concept of marriage that's important. If we started calling heterosexual marriage "civil unions" would that undermine the Christian spirit of marriage? No, because words are just sounds and symbols we use to communicate ideas. Do you disagree with civil unions for homosexuals? There's really no difference, except in the wording.

I am strongly opposed to granting special rights to any group, including homosexuals. Currently the marriage laws are 100% equitable and apply uniformly to all groups regardless of race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. I am opposed to changing the definition of marriage. I am in favor of civil unions that would allow any who for whatever reason do not wish to marry or can't find somebody to marry to form themselves into family groups, recognized by law, so there can be sharing of insurance, rights of inheritance, etc. etc. I just want them to call it something different than marriage because it won't be marriage. I am strongly opposed to activist judges who presume to change the definition from the bench.

I researched that on Wikipedia and it appears you are mostly right, and I was mostly wrong.

John Paul Stevens - liberal
Anthony Kennedy - moderate
David Souter - conservative
Stephen Breyer - liberal
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - liberal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London#The_Court.27s_decision

My apologies for blaming that on conservatives, and :moon: to those five individuals.

I think Wikipedia is wrong re Souter who was appointed as a conservative but has been disappointing in his vote record which has been mostly liberal. (This I think was some of the fear surrounding Miers that she would prove to be another Souter.) Kennedy's voting record has been quite liberal. But no problem making the error re the ideology of the court. There are many who would have agreed with you and no doubt many who will disagree with me.

As a general rule, I don't think judges should just interpret the law like robots, without considering what knowledge mankind has gained since the law was enacted. There are some laws I would like to see overturned by the SC, specifically the drug laws, so if they would legislate from the bench on that issue and overturn them I think that would be a good thing. I'm sure conservatives have similar examples (Roe v. Wade). So maybe wanting judges to rule from the bench isn't just a liberal ideal. :2razz:

Well, I think we have to be consistent, and it's a bad idea to pick and choose what we think the Court should and should not legislate. The Court should overturn itself when there is bad law and Roe v Wade, though the concept is brilliant and the language is exquisite, is bad law. But we don't want the High Court creating law at all because if they get it wrong, there is nowhere to go to correct it--it makes a dictatorship of the court and removes our ability to determine what laws we want to live under. What we need to do is to elect representatives who will take initiative and pass good laws about everything.

 

[hipsterdufus]

The Democrats appeared fair with Roberts. The right killed Miers' nomination because of explicit ideological objections. This leaves the door wide open for a Democratic filibuster of any ideological extremist Bush might pick. In my opinion, this especially applies to Owens and Brown because of the gang-of-fourteen deal that allowed these two on the appeals courts. That deal established a line in the sand for how extreme a nominee for the appeals courts can be. It is perfectly reasonable to have a higher standard for the Supreme Court.

 

[hipsterdufus]

WHY didnt the right let Miers get a FAIR UP OR DOWN VOTE?

all we heard during the Roberts nomination...heck ALL we heard during the Nuclear Option debate was FAIR UP OR DOWN VOTES...thats all the republicans are asking for..FAIR UP OR DOWN VOTES

but Harriet Miers didnt get a 'FAIR UP OR DOWN VOTE" she didnt even get a fair hearing before the judiciary committee...and why? because the extreme RIGHT did not approve of her...

so the question to ask today...ask your elected officials, ask the MSM, ask the WHITE HOUSE is

why is it that only judicial nominees that are approvaed by the extreme right of the republican party deserve FAIR up or down votes???

 

[Binary_Digit]

I am strongly opposed to granting special rights to any group, including homosexuals. Currently the marriage laws are 100% equitable and apply uniformly to all groups regardless of race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. I am opposed to changing the definition of marriage. I am in favor of civil unions that would allow any who for whatever reason do not wish to marry or can't find somebody to marry to form themselves into family groups, recognized by law, so there can be sharing of insurance, rights of inheritance, etc. etc. I just want them to call it something different than marriage because it won't be marriage. I am strongly opposed to activist judges who presume to change the definition from the bench.

But having a copyright on the word "marriage" is esentially granting special rights for heterosexuals! Now I'm being pretty ridiculous, right? Because it's just a word. The sanctity of marriage is not the word "marriage", it is in the covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Right? In restraunts, when they pour two half-full katsup bottles together, they call it "marrying" them. Do we need a law banning waitstaff from saying that, because it's not really a traditional marriage? It's just a word.

Well, I think we have to be consistent, and it's a bad idea to pick and choose what we think the Court should and should not legislate.

How could we have political moderates if nobody wanted to pick and choose which issues they agree and disagree with? I agree a person's moral compass should be (at least somewhat) internally consistent, but that may or may not lead them to be consistently liberal or conservative on every issue.

What we need to do is to elect representatives who will take initiative and pass good laws about everything.

Exactly. After we define "good".

 

[scottyz]

Looks like Navy Pride was incorrect.

The democrats are staying quiet now but come confirmation time the usual suspects Kennedy. Boxer, Kerry, and Clinton will vote nay........

Much to the consternation of our liberal friends Harriet Meirs will be confirmed with about 75 votes and will be and outstanding conservative justice who will interpret the law and not make it....

You heard it here first.......

Well we shall see........Like I said your left wing buddies will vote against her but the Republicans will vote for her and she will be confirmed easily......

Book it my liberal buddy

I don't care how much the dems compliment her now there will be a huge fight over her confirmation.............Her confirmation moves the court farther to the right and the left will do everything they can to block it.....

The Republicans have the hammer though and will use it......Make no mistake about it........

:2wave:

 

[AlbqOwl]

But having a copyright on the word "marriage" is esentially granting special rights for heterosexuals! Now I'm being pretty ridiculous, right? Because it's just a word. The sanctity of marriage is not the word "marriage", it is in the covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Right? In restraunts, when they pour two half-full katsup bottles together, they call it "marrying" them. Do we need a law banning waitstaff from saying that, because it's not really a traditional marriage? It's just a word.

No it is not granting special rights for heterosexuals because there is nothing implied in any state's marriage laws that requires the one marrying to be heterosexual. The laws only specify that a marriage is between one man and one woman, and anybody, gay or straight can legally marry any consenting adult of the opposite sex. There is nothing in the marriage laws requiring the two who marry to even like, much less love each other, but the laws are 100% equitable and nondiscriminatory. So create a new law and pick a new word for 'civil unions' that are other than marriage.


How could we have political moderates if nobody wanted to pick and choose which issues they agree and disagree with? I agree a person's moral compass should be (at least somewhat) internally consistent, but that may or may not lead them to be consistently liberal or conservative on every issue.

None of us are 100% anything. The idea is to decide what value, not whose values, we hold. The only 'moderates' are those who have no strong convictions or who don't care one way or the other. We want judges who rule on the basis of law, not personal preferences, or in other words do not judge on the basis of ideology at all.

Exactly. After we define "good".

"Good" is what we know to be the best choice with the least unintended bad consequences. That is the best any of us can do.

 

[Binary_Digit]

No it is not granting special rights for heterosexuals because there is nothing implied in any state's marriage laws that requires the one marrying to be heterosexual. The laws only specify that a marriage is between one man and one woman, and anybody, gay or straight can legally marry any consenting adult of the opposite sex. There is nothing in the marriage laws requiring the two who marry to even like, much less love each other, but the laws are 100% equitable and nondiscriminatory. So create a new law and pick a new word for 'civil unions' that are other than marriage.

Ok, we can call it 'domestic partnership' if you want. I'm just trying to get you to admit that it all comes down to words. Why should the law have to discriminate between two different phrases that legally mean the exact same thing?

None of us are 100% anything. The idea is to decide what value, not whose values, we hold. The only 'moderates' are those who have no strong convictions or who don't care one way or the other.

I don't understand. Moderates do care, they agree with liberals on some issues and conservatives on other issues. I should know, I'm one of them!

We want judges who rule on the basis of law, not personal preferences, or in other words do not judge on the basis of ideology at all.

How can any law get overturned if judges only rule on the basis of law?

"Good" is what we know to be the best choice with the least unintended bad consequences. That is the best any of us can do.

Agreed, that's Utilitarianism. One pitfall to that ideology is in justifying a few wrongs to make a few more rights. Often the few wrongs have more unintended consequences than it's worth, but we don't know until it's too late.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Ok, we can call it 'domestic partnership' if you want. I'm just trying to get you to admit that it all comes down to words. Why should the law have to discriminate between two different phrases that legally mean the exact same thing?

No, they do not mean the same thing. Marriage is a legal contract between one man and one woman. Civil unions or domestic partnerships or whatever you want to call other contractual relationships are not a legal contract between one man and one woman. So they should be called something other than marriage.

I don't understand. Moderates do care, they agree with liberals on some issues and conservatives on other issues. I should know, I'm one of them!

I doubt that you are. Once you take a side you become liberal or conservative on whichever side you took. You might be mostly conservative or mostly liberal or a 50-50 split on the positions you hold. Moderate is standing for nothing.

How can any law get overturned if judges only rule on the basis of law?

Unless the law is unconstitutional, judges should not overturn law for any reason. That should be the prerogative of the legislative body whether local, state, or federal.

Agreed, that's Utilitarianism. One pitfall to that ideology is in justifying a few wrongs to make a few more rights. Often the few wrongs have more unintended consequences than it's worth, but we don't know until it's too late.

If you elect good people, you don't have to worry about situation ethics.

 

[Binary_Digit]

No, they do not mean the same thing. Marriage is a legal contract between one man and one woman. Civil unions or domestic partnerships or whatever you want to call other contractual relationships are not a legal contract between one man and one woman. So they should be called something other than marriage.

Yes, *legally* they do mean the same thing. If domestic partnerships between two men are supposed to have equal rights under the law, then there is no reason for the law to define marriage as only between a man and woman. The same set of laws would apply to both, so why should they be separate as far as the law is concerned?

I doubt that you are. Once you take a side you become liberal or conservative on whichever side you took. You might be mostly conservative or mostly liberal or a 50-50 split on the positions you hold. Moderate is standing for nothing.

Huh? Let's see, I'm strongly against the death penalty (liberal) but I strongly support the NRA (conservative). Am I split 50-50 on my positions? Does that mean I stand for nothing?

 

[Kandahar]

Thank god. I honestly can't begin to fathom what was going through George Bush's mind when he nominated her in the first place.

 

[FinnMacCool]

What many of us wanted was for the President and GOP to start acting like winners instead of timid sheep, take the leadership role we expected, and start acting like CONSERVATIVES that were elected to represent us. We wanted a supreme court nominee with positive conservative credentials, with proven originalist judicial temperament, and one with stature that would make the liberal left wingnuts howl with terror.

For some reason, this statement really pissed me off. I don't see why our presidents can't just pick a judge that actually does the job instead of doing it so the opposing side can "howl with terror" as Albowl said. Maybe supreme court judges should be elected instead of appointed?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Yes, *legally* they do mean the same thing. If domestic partnerships between two men are supposed to have equal rights under the law, then there is no reason for the law to define marriage as only between a man and woman. The same set of laws would apply to both, so why should they be separate as far as the law is concerned?

No, they do not mean the same thing. They offer similar rights and privileges, but one is between a man and a woman with very specific restrictions respective to age, blood relationships, no communicable diseases, etc. and is primarily for the procreation of and/or an environment for the rearing of children whether or not any children are produced by the relationship. The other could be beween any combination of sexes or any number of people for that matter with no need for consideration of gender or the number of people involved and no need for concern re blood relationships or communicable diseases, etc. Many of the regulations governing marriage would be silly and would soon be challenged if applied to this group.


Huh? Let's see, I'm strongly against the death penalty (liberal) but I strongly support the NRA (conservative). Am I split 50-50 on my positions? Does that mean I stand for nothing?

I think you did not read my post(s) carefully or misunderstood. Probably none of us is 100% conservative or 100% liberal but most of us hold either a conservative or liberal view on any given issue. Libertarians are generally more sociallly liberal and fiscally conservative for instance, but there is usually nothing moderate about them. It is only those who can't tell you what they believe or why they believe something that are the true moderates; i.e. those who stand for nothing.

Note that I have not assigned good or bad or better or best to any of this. It is simply the way I define principles and I don't require that anybody else agree with my definitions.

 

[shuamort]

Humor from the Onion:

Bush To Nominate Next Person Who Walks Through Door

 

[cnredd]

WHY didnt the right let Miers get a FAIR UP OR DOWN VOTE?

all we heard during the Roberts nomination...heck ALL we heard during the Nuclear Option debate was FAIR UP OR DOWN VOTES...thats all the republicans are asking for..FAIR UP OR DOWN VOTES

but Harriet Miers didnt get a 'FAIR UP OR DOWN VOTE" she didnt even get a fair hearing before the judiciary committee...and why? because the extreme RIGHT did not approve of her...

so the question to ask today...ask your elected officials, ask the MSM, ask the WHITE HOUSE is

why is it that only judicial nominees that are approvaed by the extreme right of the republican party deserve FAIR up or down votes???

Purely an uninformed partisan statement...:roll:

She withdrew...No one STOPPED her from getting an up-or-down vote except herself...

If the Conservatives in the Senate started a filibuster to prevent this vote, or there was some sort of "knuckle-dragging" within the Judiciary Committee, then you would have a case, but that isn't an issue here...

 

[galenrox]

Before the left declares victory...please keep this in mind...

One of the major impacts that influenced the withdraw was that the Conservative base believed that she wasn't Conservative ENOUGH...

If the left thought she was too Conservative...wait 'til you see the NEXT nominee...

That's why the leaders of the left didn't jump in hemming and hawing...They knew the right was going to do that...If she was confirmed, the left would've actually WON...

Remember...it has been reported that Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Minority leader endorsed her nomination...Bush tried to reach accross the aisle and went with Reid's endorsement...It was the Conservative base that stopped it, so ease up with the Bush rants...at least on THIS issue...:2wave:

Now we are PROBABLY going to see a true fight...Expect Bush to appease the Conservative base and choose a nominee more in tune with them...That will create voices of dismay from the left...

Keep in mind these points...they are still valid...

One does not have to BE a judge to be nominated...Many Supreme Court justices have been chosen without judicial experience and have turned out quite well...

Check and see what the National Bar Association has to say on the next nominee...

Check & see what the "Gang of 14" has to say...

I don't see this as a victory for the left, considering that it was those on the right who were far more vocal in their opposition.
Other than the whole Roe v. Wade thing, I think that conservative justices end up better. They support states rights and smaller government, and I like that.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Purely an uninformed partisan statement...:roll:

She withdrew...No one STOPPED her from getting an up-or-down vote except herself...

If the Conservatives in the Senate started a filibuster to prevent this vote, or there was some sort of "knuckle-dragging" within the Judiciary Committee, then you would have a case, but that isn't an issue here...

FYI - Frist called Bush and said he didn't have the votes - endgame.