Harriett Miers Supreme Court nomination

[aps]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Based on the articles I have read, Bush has said that Miers will not legislate from the bench.

There was an article back in July 2005, where the NYT indicated the % of laws passed by Congress that each justice had voted to strike down. I have the article saved on my computer (because I found it particularly interesting), so I will just cut and paste the justice and the % of laws that each had voted to strike down:

Thomas:......65.63%
Kennedy:.....64.06%
Scalia:.........56.25%
Rehnquist:....46.88%
O'Connor:.....46.77%
Souter:........42.19%
Stevens:......39.34%
Ginsburg:......39.06%
Breyer:........28.13%

So maybe she is more liberal than I initially thought, if Bush says she won't legislate from the bench.

 

[danarhea]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Since when was that a qualification? Justices do not "try" cases as do lower judges so why does that experience or lack of it alone disqualify her. Many many many justices have never served a day on the bench, some of the most celebrated in fact.


He barely had two years on the bench and that becomes the hallmark?



On that basis alone?

They might not "judge" cases, but they do interpret law.

There are some of the most celebrated judges without experience. You mean, like David Souter. He was another bad choice.

Barely two years on the bench, but at least he has a track record on the bench, and a track record not as a judicial activist, but as a judge who did his job properly.

Yes, on that basis alone.

 

[gordontravels]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Sometimes if you wait for just a day or so you get a chance to hear some views from both sides and it can help answer some of the hysterics such as: Experience? Support or fillabuster? Who says yay and who says nay? Who just jumps on the partisan band wagon and who is really willing to study the issue or nominee and base their knee jerk reaction on actual facts?

39 Supreme Court Justices have had no experience as a judge.

Harry Reid not only has come out for her but suggested her to the President before he nominated John Roberts.

She has practiced law for 30 years.

She has never been arrested or involved in any scandal.

She has donated to Lloyd Bentsen (D) of Texas; Al Gore (D) TN; and a number of Republians including President Bush. None of these donations were illegal or should disqualify her.

It seems to me that the only argument that people use here that has any weight at all is that President Bush nominated her. So weak as to be laughable. :duel

 

[jakurus]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

I love how people are saying it's horrible of Bush to pick someone he trusts.

We should expect President to nominate the justice that is most going to do their job the way the President thinks it should be done.

Bush supposedly thinks judges should have a limited role in government, so he supposedly wants to get judges who will limit their own roles, strict constructionists.

IMO, if you don't think judges should have a large role in government, you should change the rules of the court to limit that, not just trust every judge to do so.

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

President Bush made a promise to Conservatives...If you elect me I will nominate judges that think like Thomas and Scalia........If you on the left did not want that to happen you should have elected Kerry........

President Bush is only keeping his promise and if that 85 year old justice retires or kicks the bucket then stand by for another Conservative and hopefully that murderous law Roe V Wade will be overturned and abortion issue will return to the states where it belongs..........

 

[Kelzie]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

She has never been arrested or involved in any scandal. :duel

Ooohh she's never been arrested?!? Well role out the red carpet, she should be a shoo-in. :roll:

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Simple fact 1: Harriett Miers has no judicial experiance.
Simple fact 2: Harriet Miers is far too close the administration and to the republican party.
Simple fact 3: Shrub I mean Bush has a history of doling out nominations as political favors. Just look at Mike Brown and just about everyone in the Homeland Security Department with a leadership position.

 

[scottyz]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Personnally, ..I would have prefered more of a known conservative commodity who would help launch a senate fight which would ignite the nuclear option that the senate majority had promised, rather than kow-tow to the democrats ongoing vision of "institutionalized" liberalism to the extent that all things that the left revere as untouchable forvever,... never to be discussed, or debated regardless of its outdated, or illegal activist past origins!

This crap about the senate republican majority having to choose who the liberals deem as "mainstream" is absolutely horsedump, ...as the liberals sure as hell do not, nor ever have represented the values of mainstream america.

Yet 48% of Americans who voted chose a so-called liberal. hmmm.

Actually....a good old senate fight would most probably be the last nail in the coffin for liberalism, ...something that the Nancy Pelosi's, The Barbara Boxer's, The Chuckie Schumer's, & Ted Kennedy's had better understand DOES represent the views of the mainstream american voters. :smile:

So basically you just want to further divide the country because you think it will help your party? :applaud

 

[scottyz]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

I think no matter who the president nominates the democrats will try and block her

Just like they blocked Roberts. Those dirty dems!

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Simple fact 1: Harriett Miers has no judicial experiance.
Simple fact 2: Harriet Miers is far too close the administration and to the republican party.
Simple fact 3: Shrub I mean Bush has a history of doling out nominations as political favors. Just look at Mike Brown and just about everyone in the Homeland Security Department with a leadership position.

There have been 10 judges that have been confirmed with no judicial experience including some of the most prominent ones of all time.....

That is what happens when you elect a president.He gets to chose the judges............FDR picked several of his cronnies for the court.........

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Yet 48% of Americans who voted chose a so-called liberal. hmmm.


So basically you just want to further divide the country because you think it will help your party? :applaud

Yeah but 52% voted for President Bush


No we want a Conservative Supreme Court as Liberals want a Liberal Supreme Court if they are in power..........The solution is get a liberal elected president.......:lol:

 

[gordontravels]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Simple fact 1: Harriett Miers has no judicial experiance.
Simple fact 2: Harriet Miers is far too close the administration and to the republican party.
Simple fact 3: Shrub I mean Bush has a history of doling out nominations as political favors. Just look at Mike Brown and just about everyone in the Homeland Security Department with a leadership position.

As soon as you vomit up the term "shrub" your argument falls.

You say Simple Fact?

1. Just as 39 other justices didn't and were appointed by their President and approved by the Senate. You didn't know?

2. Imagine, Harriet Miers is "far" too close to the administration and Republicans. Let's see? She was appointed by a Republican so what makes you think she is so close. Oh yes. Hate as you will you can't get over that he is president. Tissues are on sale at Wal-Mart.

3. Yes and here's President Bush doling out another nomination as a political favor. The Senate Democrat Minority Leader Harry Reid met with the president this summer before Roberts was picked and suggested to the president that he consider Harriet Miers. So the President did a political favor for the Senate Minority Leader. Poor you with no side to blame but still lame; limping along with that unsettled decline in political fortune as a weight pulling you to the depths. Next time get someone that can win.

As the 39 predecessors that had, in some cases, less experience than this qualified woman did, she will be confirmed. Another brilliant move by President Bush and another victory for both you and me. Only difference is you don't get it because you can't. More fun doing your "shrub" routine while the intelligent money is on the President and his nominee with the help of the Democrats that count. Better get with it or really get left behind. :duel

 

[kal-el]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Kal-el, HE HAS ALREADY PLACED HIS STAMP ON AMERICA FOR THE REST OF EVERYONE'S LIFE.

Yes, that was and is the goal of hardline cons- to pack the court with extreme ideologoues who are eager to reverse decades of progress on civil rights, religious freedom, and abortion rights.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

They might not "judge" cases, but they do interpret law.

Yes which doesn't require experience of sitting as a judge during judicial proceedings.

There are some of the most celebrated judges without experience. You mean, like David Souter. He was another bad choice.

Try Warren, who served as Chief Justice, and Black or Joesph Story, the youngest ever appointee or John Marshal whom many say was the greatest Justice of them all, also served as Chief Justice.

Barely two years on the bench, but at least he has a track record on the bench, and a track record not as a judicial activist, but as a judge who did his job properly.

And I have no reason to believe at this point that Miers will be an activist judge. But we do know that she is a highly qualified legal mind.

Yes, on that basis alone.

Then you would have denied Warren, Black, Marshal and Story and 13 others? So you would have voted against William O Douglas, the longest serving justice?

 

[Stu Ghatze]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

galen...

I expected this rubbish from certain forum members...you weren't one of them...

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was complimentary, issuing a statement that said he likes Miers and adding "the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."

At the same time, he said he looked forward to the "process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court."

Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, according to several sources familiar with the president's consultations with individual senators. Of equal importance as the White House maps its confirmation campaign is that the Nevada Democrat had warned Bush that the selection of any of several other contenders could trigger a bruising partisan struggle...

...Federal Election Commission records show Miers contributed $1,000 to Bush when he first ran for the White House in 2000 and $5,000 to the Bush-Cheney Recount Fund in the post-election struggle that finally sealed his victory over Al Gore.

Ironically, she had donated $1,000 to Gore a dozen years earlier, when he first sought the White House.

There was little outright opposition to Miers in the first few hours after her selection was announced _ and what there was came from the most unyielding conservative anti-abortion groups...

...While House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president had seriously considered 12 to 15 contenders for the job. He said more than one Democratic senator had broached Miers' name to the president, but declined to identify them...

...Eager to rebut any charges of cronyism, the White House produced statistics showing that 10 of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933 had worked for the president who picked them. Among them were the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, first tapped for the court by Richard M. Nixon, and Byron White, whose president was John F. Kennedy...

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/10/03/233742.html

So while some immediately jump on the "smear bandwagon", it has been revealed that Senator Reid himself was one of the ones who "recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination"...

Sorry to rain on the "I hate Bush" parade...:2wave:

Harry Reid was also "complimentary" to John Roberts too, before he voted him down!

Perhaps Reid finds Miers a bit of the soft touch on certain issies?

 

[wxcrazytwo]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Ooohh she's never been arrested?!? Well role out the red carpet, she should be a shoo-in. :roll:

Not so quick Kelzie. I think she will have a rough time even when nobody knows her stance on issues, except for the fact she schmoozes Bush a**.

 

[wxcrazytwo]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Just like they blocked Roberts. Those dirty dems!

Roberts was a shoe in from the beginning. They (Dems) had to give him a little bit of a hard time. However, Harriett no way. NEXT!!!

 

[gordontravels]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

I too have cited Senator Reid as a proponent of Harriett Miers but the votes aren't in are they?

We are dealing with politicians here and what they have to gain because even someone like Harry Reid doesn't do something unless there is something in it for him or his party. It could be that he sees Harriett Miers as the least of evils for appointment to the high court.

It could also be that there is something to be used against her that he may pony up before the vote for "controversy, scandal and lighting the firestorm". Sorry, just had to get that media dribble out of me.

I say watch where the likes of Harry Reid and Chuck Schummer go (Chuck likes her too). Could be they want to put the President on the offensive late in the game or then may actually be taking a break from politics. The President will hold a press conference in minutes this morning so of course MSNBC is pumping up the media rhetoric already. I feel the same about this as I do about investigations into the CIA or Delay or Frist. Let's see how the confirmation hearings go and have an up or down vote. :duel

 

[aps]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

As soon as you vomit up the term "shrub" your argument falls.

You say Simple Fact?

1. Just as 39 other justices didn't and were appointed by their President and approved by the Senate. You didn't know?

2. Imagine, Harriet Miers is "far" too close to the administration and Republicans. Let's see? She was appointed by a Republican so what makes you think she is so close. Oh yes. Hate as you will you can't get over that he is president. Tissues are on sale at Wal-Mart.

3. Yes and here's President Bush doling out another nomination as a political favor. The Senate Democrat Minority Leader Harry Reid met with the president this summer before Roberts was picked and suggested to the president that he consider Harriet Miers. So the President did a political favor for the Senate Minority Leader. Poor you with no side to blame but still lame; limping along with that unsettled decline in political fortune as a weight pulling you to the depths. Next time get someone that can win.

As the 39 predecessors that had, in some cases, less experience than this qualified woman did, she will be confirmed. Another brilliant move by President Bush and another victory for both you and me. Only difference is you don't get it because you can't. More fun doing your "shrub" routine while the intelligent money is on the President and his nominee with the help of the Democrats that count. Better get with it or really get left behind. :duel

Well, I am glad to see that I am not the only one that Gordon condescends. Debate is more interesting when people can articulate their positions without resorting to insulting the poster who asserted his/her positions. Tissues are on sale at Walmart, poor you with no side to blame, you don't get it because you can't, etc. Okaaaaaaaaaaay. Now that is what I call someone with a lot of intelligence and sophistication. No wonder you debate the way you do.

Gordon, why do you feel the need to argue this way? This is a genuine question. Do you think your points are stronger when made in this kind of fashion? To me, it is a total turn-off.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Can you imagine Schummer trying to beat up on her or Biden try to be condesending to her as he usually is with everyone. She's like your grandmother sitting up there, if she gets mistreated or abused I think there will be a public outcry.

Never misunderestimage Bush.

 

[wxcrazytwo]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Can you imagine Schummer trying to beat up on her or Biden try to be condesending to her as he usually is with everyone. She's like your grandmother sitting up there, if she gets mistreated or abused I think there will be a public outcry.

Never misunderestimage Bush.

She is a piece of judicial meat. All for the grabbing let the feast begin...

 

[aps]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Can you imagine Schummer trying to beat up on her or Biden try to be condesending to her as he usually is with everyone. She's like your grandmother sitting up there, if she gets mistreated or abused I think there will be a public outcry.

Never misunderestimage Bush.

Stinger, I believe that Bush called her a pitbull in high heels. Thus, I doubt she would look or act grandmotherly if she felt she was being mistreated or abused.

 

[gordontravels]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Well, I am glad to see that I am not the only one that Gordon condescends. Debate is more interesting when people can articulate their positions without resorting to insulting the poster who asserted his/her positions. Tissues are on sale at Walmart, poor you with no side to blame, you don't get it because you can't, etc. Okaaaaaaaaaaay. Now that is what I call someone with a lot of intelligence and sophistication. No wonder you debate the way you do.

Gordon, why do you feel the need to argue this way? This is a genuine question. Do you think your points are stronger when made in this kind of fashion? To me, it is a total turn-off.

Well aps, I believe that all the points I put up are "stronger" no matter how you see my fashion. Otherwise, I wouldn't take the time to post them. You are a deflector coming back on me for the way I post when you pervert the very laws of this country for your own argument. Remember, you "hope" people are guilty, not that the facts are found. You want facts to show someone did wrong so you can win. I never take that position. I want the facts to speak to me and then label individuals or issues from my agreement or disagreement, not some perversion of partisanship.

You acuse me of condesention and insults when I reply to a poster that calls my President a derogatory term. Well, you must not mind when they do. I mind. I've supported Democrats and Republicans but never stoop to name calling for anyone I may disagree with politically because it IS politics. The nature of politics is to debate with either a meeting of the minds as our two party system should achieve or - in the case of a debate forum where we don't decide the issues, we decide what is the level of civility in our debate.

It's just like your last paragraph. You ask and frame your question as so sincere but your last sentence abrogates my answer because you are "turned off". I don't care whether you like my "fashion" of argument or not. You wouldn't care one way or the other what my argument is because it's down to me pointing out your shortcomings and you pointing out mine. That's why a debate forum rarely changes minds and I certainly don't expect anything I write to change yours. Your "hope he's guilty" comment only changed my view of you, not my politics.

The poster refered to my President as "shrub" and you wonder about my fashion of posting? I'm doing fine in the current company I am dealing with. I have an inherent respect for that poster and even for you. It also carries over to politicians and media members I may disagree with. I simply post what I think but you won't find name-calling in my rhetoric.

This country used to vote and then come together for what was the work and pride our nation should still have. Then came that Democrat President Johnson and the Republican that followed him, President Nixon and with the help of our "all knowing" media, respect went out the window. Our two party system discovered they could use that media to their benefit and respect for some was completely dead. Well, not for me.

That's why I reacted and continue to think of you as that woman who "hopes" someone is guilty instead of hoping our system works. Words mean something. Name calling comes from somewhere and in my "fashion" I'll let you know what I think. I know what you think. Sad. :duel

 

[aps]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Well aps, I believe that all the points I put up are "stronger" no matter how you see my fashion. Otherwise, I wouldn't take the time to post them. You are a deflector coming back on me for the way I post when you pervert the very laws of this country for your own argument. Remember, you "hope" people are guilty, not that the facts are found. You want facts to show someone did wrong so you can win. I never take that position. I want the facts to speak to me and then label individuals or issues from my agreement or disagreement, not some perversion of partisanship.

You acuse me of condesention and insults when I reply to a poster that calls my President a derogatory term. Well, you must not mind when they do. I mind. I've supported Democrats and Republicans but never stoop to name calling for anyone I may disagree with politically because it IS politics. The nature of politics is to debate with either a meeting of the minds as our two party system should achieve or - in the case of a debate forum where we don't decide the issues, we decide what is the level of civility in our debate.

It's just like your last paragraph. You ask and frame your question as so sincere but your last sentence abrogates my answer because you are "turned off". I don't care whether you like my "fashion" of argument or not. You wouldn't care one way or the other what my argument is because it's down to me pointing out your shortcomings and you pointing out mine. That's why a debate forum rarely changes minds and I certainly don't expect anything I write to change yours. Your "hope he's guilty" comment only changed my view of you, not my politics.

The poster refered to my President as "shrub" and you wonder about my fashion of posting? I'm doing fine in the current company I am dealing with. I have an inherent respect for that poster and even for you. It also carries over to politicians and media members I may disagree with. I simply post what I think but you won't find name-calling in my rhetoric.

This country used to vote and then come together for what was the work and pride our nation should still have. Then came that Democrat President Johnson and the Republican that followed him, President Nixon and with the help of our "all knowing" media, respect went out the window. Our two party system discovered they could use that media to their benefit and respect for some was completely dead. Well, not for me.

That's why I reacted and continue to think of you as that woman who "hopes" someone is guilty instead of hoping our system works. Words mean something. Name calling comes from somewhere and in my "fashion" I'll let you know what I think. I know what you think. Sad. :duel

First of all, I did not read your entire post. You are too verbose, you repeat the same argument over and over again, and I find you utterly boring. You claim to be "middle of the road," but all I see is someone who is angry and goes out of his way to be an insecure, condescending jerk to anyone who shows a negative opinion towards republicans.

Second, so someone insults the president and you feel it's appropriate to insult the person? Are you George Bush? Are you a relative of George Bush? Why would you take it so personally? If you think it's so terrible to insult your president, why would you stoop to such a level and insult back? Oh, I'm sorry, I must remember that those who cannot argue intelligently will resort to the kind of behavior you demonstrate in your posts.

I cannot believe you're 41.

 

[Pacridge]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

First of all, I did not read your entire post. You are too verbose, you repeat the same argument over and over again, and I find you utterly boring. You claim to be "middle of the road," but all I see is someone who is angry and goes out of his way to be an insecure, condescending jerk to anyone who shows a negative opinion towards republicans.

Second, so someone insults the president and you feel it's appropriate to insult the person? Are you George Bush? Are you a relative of George Bush? Why would you take it so personally? If you think it's so terrible to insult your president, why would you stoop to such a level and insult back? Oh, I'm sorry, I must remember that those who cannot argue intelligently will resort to the kind of behavior you demonstrate in your posts.

I cannot believe you're 41.

I think you could make your point without resorting to calling someone a "condescending jerk." Don't you?