kmhowe72
Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2005
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- New England
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
kmhowe72 said:-- President Bush to nominate White House counsel Harriett Miers to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, CNN has learned
www.cnn.com
aps said:I need to read up on her, but I don't like that she hasn't been a judge,
so we do not know how she stands on certain issues.
I have a feeling that a filibuster may be looming, and I believe that if that happens, the republicans may seek to remove that ability (which I think would be assinine).
kal-el said:I don't know much about her, but the Dems said they would filibuster any ideologoue. The very little I do know about her, she has to be one, since she is so closely aligned with Bush, and she is a former White House aid.
Stinger said:Neither were 32 justicies who served including Blackmon, Warren and Rhenquist, it's not a qualifier.
Judges are not suppost to prejudge issues.
What would be the extrordinary circumstance which the gang of 14 said would have to exist?
She brings a highly qualified resume' why do you seem to be dismissing her?
aps said:I need to read up on her, but I don't like that she hasn't been a judge, so we do not know how she stands on certain issues. I have a feeling that a filibuster may be looming, and I believe that if that happens, the republicans may seek to remove that ability (which I think would be assinine).
wxcrazytwo said:THERE IS NOTHING TO READ UP. SHE HAS NO JUDICIAL (JUDGE) EXPERIENCE..
aps said:Yes there is--where she went to undergrad, law school, and her job experiences.
Crazy, you are right--there is nothing to read up on. I just saw her biography. I'll be interested to hear her answers during her confirmation hearings.
Stinger said:Talk about prejudging a person, and define what you specifically mean by "ideologue"? And the Dems said they would filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances, what is extraordinary. She seems to be someone who respects the consitution and what it says. She has a very respectable resume', very well qualified.
kal-el said:By Idealogue, I mean someone who is far on the right. President Bush wants to leave his conservative "stamp" on America for decades to come. If she is confirmed, I'm almost sure she will force America to take a radical shift to the right.
tecoyah said:I simply have to wonder one thing....of all the qualified Judges, with voting records and experience dealing with interpretation of Law, why Her.
I for one automatically went on guard and became defensive when I looked into her background, as the very little that was there to read primarily looked as if she was working for Bush. I would prefer we try to keep the last check in place, as the checks and balances are fading away as we speak.
Moderate said:I agree, why he picked her is some what of a mystery. Being that she has worked for Bush makes me warry about our seperation of powers. How come he can't appease the 48% that didn't vot for him and appoint someone with a more liberal view?
The Senate would have confirmed Luttig, Alito, or McConnell. It certainly would have confirmed a Senator Mitch McConnell or a Senator Jon Kyl, had the president felt even a little nervous about the ultimate vote.
There was no reason for him to choose anyone but one of these outstanding conservatives. As for the diversity argument, it just seems incredible to imagine that anybody would have criticized this president of all people for his lack of devotion to that doctrine. He has appointed minorities and women to the highest offices in the land, relied on women as his closest advisers, and staffed his administration through and through with Americans of every race, sex, faith, and national origin. He had nothing to apologize for on that score. So the question must be asked, as Admiral Rickover once demanded of Jimmy Carter: Why not the best?
I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or--and more importantly--that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. This is a chance that may never occur again: a decisive vacancy on the court, a conservative president, a 55-seat Republican majority, a large bench of brilliant and superbly credentialed conservative jurists ... and what has been done with the opportunity?
I am not saying that Harriet Miers is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have good reason to believe either of these things. In other words, we are being asked by this president to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant.
shuamort said:Well, according to the National Review, a conservative newssource, she could be a bit too left leaning. If they think that and the dems accuse her of being too conservative, I think we might find a good happy middle ground. If so, good for Bush.
George W. Gump said:Supreme Court nominees are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get.
Moderate said:I agree, why he picked her is some what of a mystery. Being that she has worked for Bush makes me warry about our seperation of powers. How come he can't appease the 48% that didn't vot for him and appoint someone with a more liberal view?
There is very little in the way of legal background that makes her qualified, but that isn't necessarily a requirement anymore. But I fear for Bush...I know, because I think that he is once again going back to personal friends instead of the most and best qualified, even if that person is more conservative. Whatever, it will be what it will be.tecoyah said:I simply have to wonder one thing....of all the qualified Judges, with voting records and experience dealing with interpretation of Law, why Her.
I for one automatically went on guard and became defensive when I looked into her background, as the very little that was there to read primarily looked as if she was working for Bush. I would prefer we try to keep the last check in place, as the checks and balances are fading away as we speak.
aps said:I hadn't thought of the extraordinary circumstances qualifier. I agree--that may be tough to meet.
Stinger, I read "Meeting Justice Blackmun" by Linda Greenhouse, which was about his life. Blackmun was definitely a judge before going to the Supreme Court.
I am not sure about Warren (who was best friends with Blackmun until a case at the Supreme Court tore that relationship apart).
I am not dismissing her, but I have doubts about her because I am sure she has assured the president of how she would vote in certain cases
Stinger said:Sorry I meant Hugo Black not Blackmun.
Never a judge as many of the Supreme's, it is not a requirement.
Which is pure speculation on your part, you can't possibly be "sure". Seems she has been a Democrat for most of her life.
kal-el said:By Idealogue, I mean someone who is far on the right. President Bush wants to leave his conservative "stamp" on America for decades to come. If she is confirmed, I'm almost sure she will force America to take a radical shift to the right.
danarhea said:My problem is that she has no judicial experience whatsoever. Because of that, I am against her nomination.
Has nothing to do with her ideology either. I supported the Roberts nomination, and I will support a Conservative choice where the nominee has judicial experience.
I just cannot support her, because of the lack of experience. Bush made a poor choice with this one.
Stinger said:Harry Ried seems to like her and bunch of other Senators said that she would be confirmed. Can you list anything in her background that would unqualify her. She brings quite a resume'.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?