Harriet Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination

[Navy Pride]

Yes, I don't trust Frist and I don't trust Coulter.

Why am I not surprised?:roll:
Let me ask you a question....Are there any Conservatives you trust?

 

[JOHNYJ]

Presiden Bush is already being described as a hostage to extreme Right wing ideologues.If he nominates any of the 2 Right wing women .Who were confirmed to the appeals court in the gang of 14 comprimise, he will get one hell of a fight,

 

[Navy Pride]

Presiden Bush is already being described as a hostage to extreme Right wing ideologues.If he nominates any of the 2 Right wing women .Who were confirmed to the appeals court in the gang of 14 comprimise, he will get one hell of a fight,

I hope your right then the leader in the Senate can according to the Constitution which says it only takes a simple majority to confirm a justice to the SCOTUS invoke the nuclear option and put and end to the illegal filibuster tactics to block justices from being confirmed......

 

[Kandahar]

First of all your statement about having no experience as a judge means nothing......It is not a requirement to be a judge to serve on the SCOTUS and just a few years ago Earl Warren was apponted with no judicial experience and their have been many others.............

Yes, but as I mentioned in my previous post, the judges that didn't have any prior judicial experiences have generally had other impressive qualifications to make up for this. Earl Warren, for example, had plenty of exposure to constitutional law as a district attorney and governor. The few justices that haven't had any judicial experience or constitutional law experience turned out to be mediocrities.

I would not expect a person of your political leanings to approve of anyone President Bush nominates,

I enthusiastically endorsed John Roberts and still do. I'd be perfectly satisfied with Michael McConnell, J. Michael Luttig, or most other of the likely picks.

I think he's going to nominate Samuel Alito though, and I don't know enough about him to render judgment yet.

but let me remind you by being re elected in 2004 this president has the right to nominate anyone he sees fit............Clinton did it with a left winger by the name of Ginsberg....

What is good for the goose is good for the gander........

It isn't about ideology. It's about appointing a qualified, competent justice who isn't going to have a conflict of interest every time her former boss appears before her court.

 

[gwynn]

That said I am now very excited about the possiblility of a true Conservative like Janis Rogers Brown or Patrica Owens nominated and I dare the democrats in the Senate to try and filibuster either.......

If someone like Patricia Owens, with a long record of rewriting law on the bench, is nominated I would expect a filibuster. Might even get some no votes from moderate Republicans.

 

[Navy Pride]

If someone like Patricia Owens, with a long record of rewriting law on the bench, is nominated I would expect a filibuster. Might even get some no votes from moderate Republicans.

I would not bet on that amd there are conservative dems like Nelson from Nebraska who would vote for her............It would be hard to find her and extreme candidate after she just got confirmed for the circuit court and their are 7 dems on the gang of 14 that would probably vote for her because of that reason unless they go back on their word..........

Its amazing that when Clinton was president that he nominates one of the biggest liberals in history in Ginsberg she is confirmed 96-3 but when a Bush trys to nominate a conservative all hell breaks loose.......

Can you say HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!

 

[26 X World Champs]

I am sorry to see HM quit but maybe now President Bush will nominate someone like Priscilla Owen or Janis Rogers Brown and then the real fun will begin.............

When I read ignorant posts like this one I have to roll my eyes :roll:

Navy wants there to be a Senate confrontation that leads to a filibuster and then he hopes that the Republican majority will use the "Nuclear" option and destroy the filibuster.

This would be a very sad day for the Republic, with the key word being REPUBLIC. In a Republic the minority has a voice, a strong voice at times, and this vital factor is one of the founding (if not THE founding) principles of the USA.

The filibsuter has stood in one form or another since the creation of our Republic, and it has served all of us well. Is it perfect? Duh, of course not, but the flip side, simple majority rule has the potential to destroy our country and remove the voice of the minority, basically we would be burning the Constitution and completely altering it's intentions.

Ironic isn't it? So many right wingers write over and over again that they want an associate justice who will strictly interpret the Constitution yet some of these same nut jobs now want, or actually relish the chance to completely alter the original meaning of one of our most sacred principles, the voice of the minority.

The intelligence level this type of thinking suggests is only slightly above retarded, and anyone who want to remove the voice of the minority in the USA is as UNAMERICAN as you can get, IMHO!

 

[Navy Pride]

When I read ignorant posts like this one I have to roll my eyes :roll:

Navy wants there to be a Senate confrontation that leads to a filibuster and then he hopes that the Republican majority will use the "Nuclear" option and destroy the filibuster.

This would be a very sad day for the Republic, with the key word being REPUBLIC. In a Republic the minority has a voice, a strong voice at times, and this vital factor is one of the founding (if not THE founding) principles of the USA.

The filibsuter has stood in one form or another since the creation of our Republic, and it has served all of us well. Is it perfect? Duh, of course not, but the flip side, simple majority rule has the potential to destroy our country and remove the voice of the minority, basically we would be burning the Constitution and completely altering it's intentions.

Ironic isn't it? So many right wingers write over and over again that they want an associate justice who will strictly interpret the Constitution yet some of these same nut jobs now want, or actually relish the chance to completely alter the original meaning of one of our most sacred principles, the voice of the minority.

The intelligence level this type of thinking suggests is only slightly above retarded, and anyone who want to remove the voice of the minority in the USA is as UNAMERICAN as you can get, IMHO!

You are wrong........The filibuster has not been used to block judges confirmations until very recently.......

I want nominees to the Supreme Court to be confirmed by the simple majority of 51 votes which is what the Constituion states........I don't like the nuclear option but if that is the only way to get qualified justices confirmed so be it...........Its funny when Clinton was prez and he nominates a left winger like Ginsberg she is confirmed 96-3 but when Bush trys to nominate a Conservative all hell nreaks loose................

I just want the same playing field................

 

[26 X World Champs]

You are wrong........The filibuster has not been used to block judges confirmations until very recently.......

I want nominees to the Supreme Court to be confirmed by the simple majority of 51 votes which is what the Constituion states........I don't like the nuclear option but if that is the only way to get qualified justices confirmed so be it.

Yup...the Republic be damned! Screw the founding principles of a minority voice because I want what I want when I want it....

Concept? How about finding someone like a Roberts that 78 Senators can vote for? Is that too in depth a solution for you?

 

[Navy Pride]

Yup...the Republic be damned! Screw the founding principles of a minority voice because I want what I want when I want it....

Concept? How about finding someone like a Roberts that 78 Senators can vote for? Is that too in depth a solution for you?

Do you mean like Clinton did with Ginsberg?:roll: She is a Roberts clone
right?:roll:

Oh and the foiunding fathers who drafted the constitution said that a justice could be confirmed by a simple majority.......

 

[26 X World Champs]

Oh and the foiunding fathers who drafted the constitution said that a justice could be confirmed by a simple majority.......

Is that all they said Mr. Pride?

Look it is obvious to me that you do not believe in the United States, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands for if you did you surely wouldn't be advocating the censoring of the minority voice, that same voice that separates the USA from all other nations.

It doesn't take a genius to understand the concept of checks and balances, and the filibuster is one of those balances. I think only "sore winners" wnat absolute majority rule and if they do perhaps it's time for them to move to another country in a land far, far away.

Remember these words? "The United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands."

 

[Navy Pride]

Is that all they said Mr. Pride?

Look it is obvious to me that you do not believe in the United States, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands for if you did you surely wouldn't be advocating the censoring of the minority voice, that same voice that separates the USA from all other nations.

It doesn't take a genius to understand the concept of checks and balances, and the filibuster is one of those balances. I think only "sore winners" wnat absolute majority rule and if they do perhaps it's time for them to move to another country in a land far, far away.

Remember these words? "The United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands."

Instead of just attacking me why don't you address what I said about the Constitution aand a President's option to nominate people that go along with his political beliefs or does that only work that way when a democrat or Clinton is president?

 

[Kandahar]

Instead of just attacking me why don't you address what I said about the Constitution aand a President's option to nominate people that go along with his political beliefs or does that only work that way when a democrat or Clinton is president?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was superbly qualified for the office, regardless of what you think of her politics. Harriet Miers was not.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg hadn't previously worked directly for Bill Clinton, and therefore wouldn't have had a conflict of interest every single time his administration came before the Supreme Court.

I keep posting these obvious flaws in Harriet Miers' nomination, yet you keep ignoring them. I guess you only hear what you want to hear. :roll:

 

[Navy Pride]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was superbly qualified for the office, regardless of what you think of her politics. Harriet Miers was not.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg hadn't previously worked directly for Bill Clinton, and therefore wouldn't have had a conflict of interest every single time his administration came before the Supreme Court.

I keep posting these obvious flaws in Harriet Miers' nomination, yet you keep ignoring them. I guess you only hear what you want to hear. :roll:

In case you have not noticed HM has withdrawn her nomination....We are talking about a President's perogative to nominate people to the Court of his political persuasion......Its OK when Clinton nominates a huge left winger like Ginsberg but it is not OK if President Bush nominates a Conservative like Janis Rogers Brown or Patricia Owens.....Why is that?????

 

[26 X World Champs]

We are talking about a President's perogative to nominate people to the Court of his political persuasion......Its OK when Clinton nominates a huge left winger like Ginsberg but it is not OK if President Bush nominates a Conservative like Janis Rogers Brown or Patricia Owens.....Why is that?????

Whining is quite unbecoming, you know? It's called Advise & Consent. If the Senate wanted to not approve of Judge Ginsberg they would not have. You're making it sound like there's no such thing as Advise & Consent, which again, is not the way our government works.

Why are you making stuff up? Why are you talking about Ginsberg? She has squat to do with Meirs. I get the feeling that you're blaming Meirs incredible defeat on Democrats? If you are, then you are totally wrong.

You know who defeated her? Bush for one, choosing a crony that infuriated his base is as dumb as it gets, yet another in a series of moronic decisions by Team Bush. Is this how you envisioned Bush's 2nd term? You know, the majority of Americans are against him, against the war, against his Supreme Court choice, against his policies, i.e. govt. spending, cronyism, etc.

Why you feel it necessary to again bring Clinton into this debate over Bush's choices for the Supreme Court is beyond me, but you do it all the time. It's been 5 years Navy Pride, can you please stop writing about Clinton in every debate you participate in?

You call Clinton a rapist all the time. You constantly refer to Clinton when you have nothing to add to a debate, he's like your security blanket.

It reminds me of a recent South Park episode that was about a metaphor about Katrina and one of the first things the boys did whenever something went wrong was blame Bush, kind of like what you do when your out of words, you blame Clinton.

Meirs was truly crappy choice by Bush, just ask all of the Conservative pundits who threw her to the dogs.

Now you, Navy Pride, have again expressed a burning desire to have a giant confrontation in the Senate to remove filibusters from the process, thereby removing the minority voice our country was built upon. I believe you feel this way because all you want is to get your way, and therefore the Republic be damned.

You like to say "book it." You did that re Meirs and her book got burnt. Well here's what I think...if Republicans go insane and remove filibusters from the Senate they will rue the day because inevitably Democrats will gain the majority in both houses again at some point and then all of those greedy politicians who prefer their wants to the betterment of the country will whine and whine and whine.

What Bush should do is name someone that is acceptable to 60+ Senators. That will serve everyone's purpose and will preserve the minority rights we who value our Republic consider to be vital.

Stop the Clinton bullshit, it's so last century.....

 

[Navy Pride]

Whining is quite unbecoming, you know? It's called Advise & Consent. If the Senate wanted to not approve of Judge Ginsberg they would not have. You're making it sound like there's no such thing as Advise & Consent, which again, is not the way our government works.

Why are you making stuff up? Why are you talking about Ginsberg? She has squat to do with Meirs. I get the feeling that you're blaming Meirs incredible defeat on Democrats? If you are, then you are totally wrong.

You know who defeated her? Bush for one, choosing a crony that infuriated his base is as dumb as it gets, yet another in a series of moronic decisions by Team Bush. Is this how you envisioned Bush's 2nd term? You know, the majority of Americans are against him, against the war, against his Supreme Court choice, against his policies, i.e. govt. spending, cronyism, etc.

Why you feel it necessary to again bring Clinton into this debate over Bush's choices for the Supreme Court is beyond me, but you do it all the time. It's been 5 years Navy Pride, can you please stop writing about Clinton in every debate you participate in?

You call Clinton a rapist all the time. You constantly refer to Clinton when you have nothing to add to a debate, he's like your security blanket.

It reminds me of a recent South Park episode that was about a metaphor about Katrina and one of the first things the boys did whenever something went wrong was blame Bush, kind of like what you do when your out of words, you blame Clinton.

Meirs was truly crappy choice by Bush, just ask all of the Conservative pundits who threw her to the dogs.

Now you, Navy Pride, have again expressed a burning desire to have a giant confrontation in the Senate to remove filibusters from the process, thereby removing the minority voice our country was built upon. I believe you feel this way because all you want is to get your way, and therefore the Republic be damned.

You like to say "book it." You did that re Meirs and her book got burnt. Well here's what I think...if Republicans go insane and remove filibusters from the Senate they will rue the day because inevitably Democrats will gain the majority in both houses again at some point and then all of those greedy politicians who prefer their wants to the betterment of the country will whine and whine and whine.

What Bush should do is name someone that is acceptable to 60+ Senators. That will serve everyone's purpose and will preserve the minority rights we who value our Republic consider to be vital.

Stop the Clinton bullshit, it's so last century.....

Why do you keep talking about HM? In case you didn't know it she withdrew her name....

Now lets move on and try and concentrate like a laser beam........

One of the perks a president gets when he is elected is chosing vancancies for the Supreme Court.......They usually chose people that agree with them politically although some Republican Presidents have screwed up and nominated Liberals who they thought were Conservatives....Bush 1 and Soutar come to mind...........

Now when "Slick Willie" was elected he chose one of the biggest Liberal around in Ginsburg....Well Republican knew she was a Liberal, Hell she was lead attorney of one of the biggest left wing organizations in the country, the ACLU.........But Republicans knowing that a president can chose who he wants help confirm her by a 96-3 count.................

Now the shoe is on the other foot.........We have a president who is a Conservative and he will nominate a Conservative to the court.......Well the whinning dems like Reid and Kennedy are already crying foul..............So let them go for it......Filibuster all you want but then the Senate leader will revert back to the Constitution which states that a simple majority of 51 votes is all you need to confirm a justice and that is called the nuclear option and takes only a simple majority of 51 votes, no filibuster......I am not going to argue about this anymore because you know I am right so rant on about HM and whatever......

That is a fact of life now live with it..........

 

[26 X World Champs]

Now when "Slick Willie" was elected he chose one of the biggest Liberal around in Ginsburg....Well Republican knew she was a Liberal, Hell she was lead attorney of one of the biggest left wing organizations in the country, the ACLU.........But Republicans knowing that a president can chose who he wants help confirm her by a 96-3 count.................

Now the shoe is on the other foot.........We have a president who is a Conservative and he will nominate a Conservative to the court.

Do you have any idea at all about American history, especially Advise & Consent? Do you know what that is? Would you please define it for me?

BTW - Here's a fun chart for you. It's a list of all the Supreme Court nominees that where never confirmed, and why. Why not study it a bit and learn about our history? ADVISE & CONSENT....what does it mean to you?

Failed Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States

Nominee Year Nominated by Outcome
William Paterson 1793 Washington Withdrawn
John Rutledge 1795 Washington Rejected
Alexander Wolcott 1811 Madison Rejected
John J. Crittenden 1828 J.Q. Adams Postponed
Roger B. Taney 1835 Jackson Postponed
John C. Spencer 1844 Tyler Rejected
Reuben H. Walworth 1844 Tyler Withdrawn
Edward King 1844 Tyler Postponed
Edward King 1845 Tyler Withdrawn
John M. Read 1845 Tyler No Action
George W. Woodward 1845 Polk Rejected
Edward A. Bradford 1852 Fillmore No Action
George E. Badger 1853 Fillmore Postponed
William C. Micou 1853 Fillmore No Action
Jerimiah S. Black 1861 Buchanan Rejected
Henery Stanbery 1866 A. Johnson No Action
Ebenezer R. Hoar 1869 Grant Rejected
George H. Williams 1873 Grant Withdrawn
Caleb Cushing 1874 Grant Withdrawn
Stanley Matthews 1881 Hayes No Action
William B. Hornblower 1893 Cleveland Rejected
Wheeler Peckham 1894 Cleveland Rejected
John J. Parker 1930 Hoover Rejected
Abe Fortas 1968 L.B. Johnson Withdrawn
Homer Thornberry 1968 L.B. Johnson No Action
Clement Haynsworth 1969 Nixon Rejected
G. Harold Carswell 1970 Nixon Rejected
Robert H. Bork 1987 Reagan Rejected
Douglas H. Ginsburg 1987 Reagan Withdrawn
Harriet Miers 2005 W. Bush Withdrawn

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Failed_Nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

The list is 30 names long. How do you square that with your bizarre theory that Presidents get carte blanche to choose whomever they want?

Please, please tell me what Advise & Consent means as it relates to Supreme Court nominees?

You might want to chant these words too..."For the REPUBLIC for which it stands"

 

[TurtleDude]

Yup...the Republic be damned! Screw the founding principles of a minority voice because I want what I want when I want it....

Concept? How about finding someone like a Roberts that 78 Senators can vote for? Is that too in depth a solution for you?

a partisan filibuster has never been used against judges until the dems started this nonsense. It is not part of the principles of the constitution or senate tradition so stop making stuff up

 

[Navy Pride]

Do you have any idea at all about American history, especially Advise & Consent? Do you know what that is? Would you please define it for me?

BTW - Here's a fun chart for you. It's a list of all the Supreme Court nominees that where never confirmed, and why. Why not study it a bit and learn about our history? ADVISE & CONSENT....what does it mean to you?


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Failed_Nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

The list is 30 names long. How do you square that with your bizarre theory that Presidents get carte blanche to choose whomever they want?

Please, please tell me what Advise & Consent means as it relates to Supreme Court nominees?

You might want to chant these words too..."For the REPUBLIC for which it stands"

Your really going to be bent out of shape when we get a good Conservative Constructionist confirmed to the SCOTUS that interprets law not makes it and I am going to love it.........:lol:

Have a nice day..........

 

[Navy Pride]

a partisan filibuster has never been used against judges until the dems started this nonsense. It is not part of the principles of the constitution or senate tradition so stop making stuff up

Exactly, The Republicans are to nice..They let left wing liberals like Ginsburg get through because they know it is the president right to have people confirmed of his political persuasion....They go by the Constitution in that if a person is qualified a litmust test should not be a requirement unlike left wingers like Boxer, Kennedy, and Kerry.......

 

[TurtleDude]

I hope Bush rams Estrada through the dems with the nuclear option. Maureen Mahoney is my choice -if its a guy then McConnell or Luttig (sp) but Estrada would be a real kick in Schumer's crotch which makes MIguel worth supporting on that ground alone

 

[Navy Pride]

I hope Bush rams Estrada through the dems with the nuclear option. Maureen Mahoney is my choice -if its a guy then McConnell or Luttig (sp) but Estrada would be a real kick in Schumer's crotch which makes MIguel worth supporting on that ground alone

They would all be great choices but I would love to see Janis Rogers Brown....A female who is African American, a true Conservative and a strict constructionist........

Can you see the dems trying to put that kind of and indvidual down?

 

[TurtleDude]

They would all be great choices but I would love to see Janis Rogers Brown....A female who is African American, a true Conservative and a strict constructionist........

Can you see the dems trying to put that kind of and indvidual down?

I don't support her elevation or some of the other women recently confirmed. I think the supreme court should be reserved for the best of the best-Estrada was Law Review and top of his class at Harvard despite coming to the US less than ten years earlier and not speaking much if any English. Maureen Mahoney was Summa at IU, editor of the law review and order of the coith at Chicago-a top 5 law school and rated one of the best appellate advocates and supreme court practicioners in the USA

Estrada also had arguments before the supremes-an experience which is probably more useful than being a federal appellate judge for less than a year.

JRB doesn't have the academic pedigree to be on the supremes IMHO

 

[Navy Pride]

I don't support her elevation or some of the other women recently confirmed. I think the supreme court should be reserved for the best of the best-Estrada was Law Review and top of his class at Harvard despite coming to the US less than ten years earlier and not speaking much if any English. Maureen Mahoney was Summa at IU, editor of the law review and order of the coith at Chicago-a top 5 law school and rated one of the best appellate advocates and supreme court practicioners in the USA

Estrada also had arguments before the supremes-an experience which is probably more useful than being a federal appellate judge for less than a year.

JRB doesn't have the academic pedigree to be on the supremes IMHO

Hey don't get me wrong, I love Estrada as a candidate......He is probably more qualified than any other candidate......I just don't think he wants to go through all the crap that the libs throw at him.......He would be a great justice though............

 

[26 X World Champs]

Your really going to be bent out of shape when we get a good Conservative Constructionist confirmed to the SCOTUS that interprets law not makes it and I am going to love it.

So you're unable to define Advice & Consent? How shocking! You also failed to make any comment whatsoever regarding the 30 previous nominees who were not confirmed? Why? Is it because you're unable to debate the topic so instead you do one of your famous NANANANANA posts? Great job!

So tell me Mr. Pride, can you define what Advice & Consent in the Constitution means or are you going to post another NANANANA post?