DVD Talk
CNN: Bush "reluctantly" accepts SC nominee Miers's request to withdraw nomination [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : CNN: Bush "reluctantly" accepts SC nominee Miers's request to withdraw nomination


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

nemein
10-03-05, 10:12 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_scotus;_ylt=Au8yzqluD8RVvEihSWpeAc.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--


WASHINGTON -
President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court on Monday, turning to a lawyer who has never been a judge to replace
Sandra Day O'Connor and help reshape the nation's judiciary.
ADVERTISEMENT

"She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," Bush said as his first Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, took the bench for the first time just a few blocks from the White House.

If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court and the third to serve there. Miers was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.

Senate Republicans said they would press for confirmation by Thanksgiving — a tight timetable by recent standards that allowed less than eight weeks for lawmakers to review her record, hold hearings and vote.

O'Connor has been the court's majority maker in dozens of controversial cases in recent years, casting deciding votes that upheld the 1973 ruling that established the constitutional right to an abortion, sustaining affirmative action programs and limiting the application of the death penalty.

Within hours of Bush's announcement in the Oval Office, Miers headed for the Capitol to begin courtesy calls on the senators who will vote on her nomination.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., was first on the list. His welcome was a statement in praise. "With this selection, the president has chosen another outstanding nominee to sit on our nations highest court," it said.

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.

At the same time, Republican strategists who spoke on condition of anonymity said they would have to work hard to assure the support of some of the more conservative Republicans in the Senate. All 55 GOP senators voted to confirm Roberts.

Miers, whom Bush called a trailblazer for women in the legal profession, said she was humbled by the nod.

"If confirmed, I recognize I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help insure the court meets their obligations to strictly apply the laws and Constitution," she said.

Whatever her credentials for the high court, Miers' loyalty to Bush — who once called her a pit bull in size 6 shoes — is above question. When he first decided to run for governor in the early 1990s, he hired Miers to comb his background for anything derogatory that opponents might try to use to defeat him.

Miers also introduced Bush to Alberto Gonzales, who served as Bush's counsel in Austin and later in Washington, before being named U.S. attorney general.

During Bush's first term as governor, Gonzales used information turned up by Miers to persuade a local judge to excuse Bush from jury duty, a civic task that would have forced him to disclose his 1976 arrest for drunken driving in Maine. The incident was not divulged until the waning days of Bush's 2000 campaign for 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.

"It's not that we don't know anything, and the small pieces of information we do know are disappointing. For example, she's Southern Methodist, notoriously pro-abortion,"said Troy Newman of Operation: Rescue.

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.

The president offered the job to Miers Sunday night over dinner in the White House residence. He met with Miers on four occasions during the past couple weeks, officials said.

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.

"Having never served as a judge, Ms. Miers has no `paper trail' of judicial opinions, and prospective opponents thus will have a hard time identifying positions to protest or complain about," said Supreme Court historian David Garrow. "What's more, Ms. Miers' professional record as an attorney in Texas is undeniably one of significant achievement and accomplishment, and her proponents will be able to present her as a female trail blazer whose life-record is at least arguably comparable to that of Justice O'Connor."

Known for thoroughness and her low-profile, Miers is one of the first staff members to arrive at the White House in the morning and among the last to leave.

When Bush named her White House counsel in November 2004, the president described Miers as a lawyer with keen judgment and discerning intellect — "a trusted adviser on whom I have long relied for straightforward advice."

He also joked of Miers, "When it comes to a cross-examination, she can fillet better than Mrs. Paul."

Formerly Bush's personal lawyer in Texas, Miers came with the president to the White House as his staff secretary, the person in charge of all the paperwork that crosses the Oval Office desk. Miers was promoted to deputy chief of staff in June 2003.

As an attorney in Dallas, Miers became president in 1996 of Locke Purnell, Rain & Harrell a firm with more than 200 lawyers where she worked starting in 1972. After it merged a few years later, she became co-manager of Locke Liddell & Sapp.

When Bush was governor of Texas, she represented him in a case involving a fishing house. In 1995, he appointed her to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission. She also served as a member-at-large on the Dallas City Council and in 1992 became the first woman president of the Texas State Bar.

sfsdfd
10-03-05, 10:15 AM
Yeah, was looking forward to discussing this.

Very ballsy of the President to choose an obvious crony a few weeks after the FEMA scandal.

The talking heads are discussing her career - lottery commission, etc. - but no word on her political leanings. Anyone have info?

- David Stein

Th0r S1mpson
10-03-05, 10:15 AM
She was on Geofferson's list. :)

Samuel Alito
Alberto Gonzales
J. Michael Luttig
<font color=red>Harriet Miers</font>
Priscilla Owen
Larry Thompson
Karen Williams

classicman2
10-03-05, 10:20 AM
David,

Simply because she's worked for the president doth not a crony make.

You're just pissed off because he didn't choose someone from the judiciary. I'm glad he didn't. ;)

I would imagine her political leanings are toward the Repubs. Does that disqualify her? You wouldn't expect him to choose a liberal Democrat, would you? ;)

classicman2
10-03-05, 10:24 AM
BTW: I see Red Dog is pissed off also because he didn't select someone from the judiciary - see closed thread. ;)

Red Dog
10-03-05, 10:25 AM
Bush is such a fucking wuss. -ohbfrank-

She's a crony. Her resume looks pretty damn light too unless cleaning up the Texas lottery is something to crow about. Makes me wonder how the ABA will rate her.

The conservative blogs are very dissapointed with Bush once again.

Red Dog
10-03-05, 10:26 AM
BTW: I see Red Dog is pissed off also because he didn't select someone from the judiciary - see closed thread. ;)


Has nothing to do with that. For instance, my number one choice would have been a certain professor from the University of Chicago. :)

I'm pissed off because he went the crony route and someone whose constitutional philosophy is entirely unknown. Heck, has she ever had an article published?

Pharoh
10-03-05, 10:28 AM
Bush is such a fucking wuss. -ohbfrank-

She's a crony. Her resume looks pretty damn light too unless cleaning up the Texas lottery is something to crow about. Makes me wonder how the ABA will rate her.

The conservative blogs are very dissapointed with Bush once again.


I am going to hold off my final judgement on her for now, however I believe she is a bit more qualified and far more legally conservative than most are giving her credit for. She would not have been my pick, but I knew that my choice, (Luttig), was not going to be the pick regardless.

Time will tell how she is ultimately viewed. At this moment though, I only give her a 60% or worse chance at getting out of committee.

classicman2
10-03-05, 10:28 AM
I do believe that a lawyer (not from the judiciary or from academia) would have more 'real-world' experience. I don't believe that's such a bad idea for the court.

DVD Polizei
10-03-05, 10:28 AM
Yeah, was looking forward to discussing this.

Very ballsy of the President to choose an obvious crony a few weeks after the FEMA scandal.

The talking heads are discussing her career - lottery commission, etc. - but no word on her political leanings. Anyone have info?

- David Stein

He's been rather ballsy since his 2nd term. And it's rather disappointing. Once again we see those in powerful positions just dangling their carrots in front of the public saying, "Soooo, whatcha gonna do about? Nothin'. That's right. Because I own you."

Obviously if Bush chose her, she has leanings towards the Republican party and specifically, is in line with Bush's morality.

classicman2
10-03-05, 10:31 AM
I assume she is pro-life.

Does that make her 'in line with Bush's morality?'

sfsdfd
10-03-05, 10:33 AM
Bio:
Ms. Miers has a long and distinguished professional career.

Before joining the President’s staff, she was Co-Managing Partner at Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP from 1998-2000. She had worked at the Locke Purnell, Rain & Harrell firm, or its predecessor, from 1972 until its merger with the Liddell Sapp firm. From 1995 until 2000, she was chair of the Texas Lottery Commission. In 1992, Harriet became the first woman president of the Texas State Bar, and in 1985 she became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association. She also served as a Member-At-Large on the Dallas City Council.

Ms. Miers received her bachelor's degree in Mathematics in 1967 and J.D. in 1970 from Southern Methodist University. Upon graduation, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970 to 1972.

Ms. Miers had a distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co. and SunGard Data Systems Inc. Moreover, when she left her law firm of Locke, Liddell & Sapp, Ms. Miers was serving as Co-Managing Partner of the firm which had more than 400 lawyers.

Throughout her career, Ms. Miers has been committed to public service. In addition to her extensive involvement in the State Bar of Texas and the American Bar Association, Ms. Miers has been an elected official, a statewide officeholder, and a strong advocate of pro bono work.

During her time in the Administration, Ms. Miers has addressed numerous legal and policy questions at the highest levels of decision making, most recently serving as the Counsel to the President of the United States.

Ms. Miers has been a trailblazer for women professionals.
<UL><LI>In 1972, Ms. Miers became the first woman hired at Dallas's Locke Purnell Rain Harrell. In March 1996, her colleagues elected her the first female President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers. She was the first woman to lead a Texas firm of that size.
<LI>In 1985, Ms. Miers was selected as the first woman to become President of the Dallas Bar Association.
<LI>In 1992, she became the first woman elected President of the State Bar of Texas. Ms. Miers served as the President of the State Bar of Texas from 1992 to 1993.
<LI>Ms. Miers recent career has been marked by her participation at the highest levels of government.
<LI>She was appointed Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary on January 20, 2001. As Staff Secretary, Ms. Miers acted as "the ultimate gatekeeper for what crosses the desk of the nation's commander in chief." In addition to this important role, Ms. Miers supervised more than 60 employees in four departments.
<LI>In 2003, Ms. Miers was named Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff. As part of the Office of the Chief of Staff, she was a top domestic policy advisor to the President.
<LI>Ms. Miers has served as Counsel to the President since February 2005. In this role, she has served as the top lawyer to the President and the White House, and in particular has been the principal advisor judicial nominations.</UL>
Ms. Miers's professional accomplishments have been recognized time and time again.
<UL><LI>Ms. Miers made partner at her law firm in 1978; the next year, she was honored as the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Dallas by the Dallas Association of Young Lawyers.
<LI>On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the Nation's 100 most powerful attorneys, and as one of the Nation's top 50 women lawyers.
<LI>She has received countless awards recognizing her distinguished career, including 1997 Woman of the Year, the 1996 Louise Raggio Award, the 1993 Sarah T. Hughes Award, and the 1992 Dallas Bar Association's Justinian Award for Community Service. In 2005 she received the Sandra Day O'Connor award.
<LI>In 1996 alone, she was honored with the Anti-Defamation League's Jurisprudence Award and the Legal Services of North Texas 1996 Merrill Hartman Award.
<LI>She also has been the recipient of a Women of Excellence Award, sponsored by Dallas's Women's Enterprise, for her work with the Dallas Bar Association and Dallas's Girls Inc.
</UL>
Ms. Miers has been an active participant in our nation's political process.
<UL><LI>In 1989, she was elected to a two-year term as an at-large candidate on the Dallas City Council. She chose not to run for re-election when her term expired.
<LI>Ms. Miers served as general counsel for the transition team of Governor-elect George W. Bush in 1994.
<LI>From 1995 until 2000, Ms. Miers served as Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, a voluntary public service position she undertook while maintaining her legal practice and other responsibilities. After then-Governor Bush appointed Ms. Miers to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission, she served as a driving force behind its cleanup. In an editorial, The Dallas Morning News complimented her distinguished service and her success in ensuring the lottery's integrity.
<LI>In addition to her trailblazing role in the Dallas Bar and Texas State Bar, Ms. Miers has been a strong voice in the American Bar Association, the leading professional organization for lawyers across the country, and the Texas State Bar.
<LI>She was one of two candidates for the number two position at the ABA, chair of the House of Delegates, before withdrawing her candidacy to move to Washington to serve in the Bush Administration.
<LI>Ms. Miers also served as the chair of the ABA's Commission on Multi-jurisdictional Practice and was a member of the ABA Governance Committee.
<LI>She has also served as the Chair of the Board of Editors of the ABA Bar Journal.
<LI>Similarly, she has served as the chairwoman of the Legal Services to the Poor in Civil Matters Committee of the State Bar of Texas.
</UL>
Throughout her career, Ms. Miers has successfully balanced her professional obligations and community involvement.
<UL><LI>For example, while she served as President of the State Bar of Texas, Ms. Miers also logged 125 pro bono hours handling an immigration and naturalization case for Catholic Charities of Dallas.
<LI>In addition to her service to the Bar and her pro bono commitments, Ms. Miers has served on the Executive Board for the Southern Methodist University School of Law and as a Trustee of the Southwestern Legal Foundation.
</UL>
Ms. Miers is single and very close to her family: two brothers and her mother live in Dallas, and a third brother lives in Houston.
Translation:

Started a law career;
Schmoozed into the Bush gubernatorial gravy train in 1994;
Held a much-ballyhooed political appointment from 1995-2000;
Schmoozed into the Bush presidential gravy train in 2001.

Sounds the makings of a <i>great</i> madam justice. I look forward to her incisive jurisprudence.

- David Stein

Red Dog
10-03-05, 10:33 AM
I care more about whether she shares Bush's expansive view of federal goverment power under the commerce clause.

DVD Polizei
10-03-05, 10:35 AM
I do believe that a lawyer (not from the judiciary or from academia) would have more 'real-world' experience. I don't believe that's such a bad idea for the court.

But this is the Supreme Court. She's never been a judge. Being a lawyer doesn't say much about a person's qualifications for the Supreme Court. The cases she's dealt with in the past will, however.

EDIT: I guess we already found out her qualifications. Not surprising at all. This administration is like a fraternity of 60-something members. rotfl

classicman2
10-03-05, 10:37 AM
Do you really believe that any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to ask her 'do you share the president's view of federal government power under the commerce clause?'

Why won't they - because they share the same view.

Red Dog
10-03-05, 10:37 AM
Wow - over 30 years of practice and she's done a whole 125 hours of pro bono work. :lol:

Sure sounds like real worlder to me.

DVD Polizei
10-03-05, 10:37 AM
I assume she is pro-life.

Does that make her 'in line with Bush's morality?'

Well, if she was pro-choice, would that make her a candidate for Bush's inner circle of choices?

sfsdfd
10-03-05, 10:39 AM
Simply because she's worked for the president doth not a crony make.
It's her sole qualification for the nomination. Or does she intend to apply her relevant experience as chair of the Texas Lottery Commission?
You're just pissed off because he didn't choose someone from the judiciary. I'm glad he didn't. ;)
They don't have to be a judge, but they do have to have some experience with legal reform, legislation... <i>something.</i> You don't meet that qualification by having practiced traditional law; that just makes you a zealous advocate (which, again, appears to be her sole qualification.)

The fact that they're touting her "125 pro bono hours" is an indication of the shallowness of her credentials.

I'd like to know more - a lot more - about how she has been "a strong voice in the American Bar Association." If she's been involved in some substantial legal reform efforts, in more than an Alberto Gonzalez "let's find the best argument for our position" cronyish manner, then I'll be more comfortable.
I would imagine her political leanings are toward the Repubs. Does that disqualify her? You wouldn't expect him to choose a liberal Democrat, would you? ;)
No, but he could have made it a little less obvious.

- David Stein

classicman2
10-03-05, 10:40 AM
Of course not. Bush campaigned twice (and was elected twice) announcing clearly what he wanted in a SC justice - like Scalia & Thomas.

Clinton didn't nominate someone in the vein that White was, did he? No, he nominated a pro-abortion judge - former chief counsel for the ACLU.

Red Dog
10-03-05, 10:43 AM
Do you really believe that any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to ask her 'do you share the president's view of federal government power under the commerce clause?'

Why won't they - because they share the same view.


Of course not. It simply validates my belief that the Scalia/Thomas promise was all just a big lie to solidify the conservative vote.

classicman2
10-03-05, 10:46 AM
Like it or not - we know there's a litmus test.

The president couldn't be sure of Roberts' feelings toward Roe v. Wade; but, I'll bet he was reasonably certain that he was pro-life.

It's no different than when Clinton nominated two SC justices. He knew (or had the best indication possible - in one case he absolutely knew) of how they viewed abortion.

sfsdfd
10-03-05, 10:47 AM
Clinton didn't nominate someone in the vein that White was, did he? No, he nominated a pro-abortion judge - former chief counsel for the ACLU.
The ACLU is heavily involved in legal reform. Working to change laws, in the abstract and not in the context of a case in controversy, is probably half of their mission.

That's really what it's about - a systemic view of the legal system, and not just a solicitor's view. The difference is critical. It's the difference between pushing for a system that provides fair results, and a system that provides the results you think it should provide.

- David Stein

wendersfan
10-03-05, 10:52 AM
EDIT: I guess we already found out her qualifications. Not surprising at all. This administration is like a fraternity of 60-something members. rotfl
What's the Bill Maher quote? Something about how it seems like the president only knows four or five people?

Geofferson
10-03-05, 10:53 AM
She was on Geofferson's list. :)

Samuel Alito
Alberto Gonzales
J. Michael Luttig
<font color=red>Harriet Miers</font>
Priscilla Owen
Larry Thompson
Karen Williams
...while not my first choice, I'm not all that surprised (though a bit frustrated).

Red Dog
10-03-05, 10:53 AM
I like this comment that was posted on a conservative blog comment board:

"Instead, this job gets filled as if it is a second tier cabinet post."

:lol:

classicman2
10-03-05, 10:54 AM
I guess Bush wanted to satisfy Justice Ginsburg. She said last week that she hoped the next justice would be a woman.

Who says George W. doesn't listen to the left? ;)

BTW: I image Laura actually made the selection.

mosquitobite
10-03-05, 10:54 AM
Bush is such a fucking wuss. -ohbfrank-

She's a crony. Her resume looks pretty damn light too unless cleaning up the Texas lottery is something to crow about. Makes me wonder how the ABA will rate her.

The conservative blogs are very dissapointed with Bush once again.


I think it's kinda funny. You and I and most conservatives think he sold us out. He's a frickin wuss afraid to go to the mat for the Scalia and Thomas type that he promised us while campaigning.

The other side here think it's a "ballsy" move. :lol: Strictly from the "crony" standpoint. :rolleyes:

I could care less that she's a crony if she were qualified. I'm pissed because the only thing I have to go on is that the President chose her. If I trusted GW Bush to be a conservative, I would have voted for him in 2004! There's no way to know if she's qualified.

Therefore, Bush must think that being a staunch originalist/constitutionalist is not worth going to the mat for, even with the majority in Congress.

I'm pissed.

kvrdave
10-03-05, 10:55 AM
Very ballsy of the President to choose an obvious crony a few weeks after the FEMA scandal.



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.


:hscratch:

So he picked a crony that the Democrat Leader recommended?

I don't understand where you are coming from here.

classicman2
10-03-05, 10:56 AM
You don't know that she is not a staunch originalist/constitutionalist. She may very well be.

Red Dog
10-03-05, 10:58 AM
I guess Bush wanted to satisfy Justice Ginsburg. She said last week that she hoped the next justice would be a woman.

Who says George W. doesn't listen to the left? ;)

BTW: I image Laura actually made the selection.


I imagine then that Bush picked the first woman he saw outside of his wife. ;)

mosquitobite
10-03-05, 10:59 AM
You don't know that she is not a staunch originalist/constitutionalist. She may very well be.

Exactly my point.

Why is he afraid to nominate someone we KNOW IS??

classicman2
10-03-05, 11:00 AM
So he picked a crony that the Democrat Leader recommended? I don't understand where you are coming from here

Some people (especially on this forum) would have been pissed-off regardless of whom Bush chose. Hell, if Oliver Wendell Holmes were still alive and Bush would have selected him, you would have seen the same comments.

The country may be divided, but DVD Talk Politics Forum is divided a hell of a lot more. :)

Red Dog
10-03-05, 11:01 AM
You don't know that she is not a staunch originalist/constitutionalist. She may very well be.


I'd say the odds of this are slim. Bush isn't an originalist (that's for damn sure) so why would I think she is?

Besides, he promised a Scalia/Thomas type. One trait of Scalia and Thomas is that everyone knew what they were when they were nominated. There were no doubts.

classicman2
10-03-05, 11:01 AM
Exactly my point.

Why is he afraid to nominate someone we KNOW IS??

How are you to know?

wendersfan
10-03-05, 11:02 AM
I imagine then that Bush picked the first woman he saw outside of his wife. ;)
A friend of mine commented that he figured Bush decided he'd nominate the first woman to walk into his office, and a few minutes later Miers brings him a cup of coffee... ;)

mosquitobite
10-03-05, 11:12 AM
How are you to know?

How did we know with Scalia & Thomas?

Mordred
10-03-05, 11:20 AM
Some people (especially on this forum) would have been pissed-off regardless of whom Bush chose. Hell, if Oliver Wendell Holmes were still alive and Bush would have selected him, you would have seen the same comments.They aren't talking about reanimating that bastard are they?

sfsdfd
10-03-05, 11:24 AM
The other side here think it's a "ballsy" move. :lol: Strictly from the "crony" standpoint. :rolleyes:
It's a bad choice. The Democrats won't tell you that, but it is a bad choice.

I don't want a liberal justice. I want a reasonable justice, one with a strong, consistent sense of jurisprudence. I side with Red Dog's views of Sandra Day O'Connor: despite her liberal leanings, she's a terrible madam justice. You can't stitch together a common set of principles from her decisions.

This is one situation where you should recognize that you can't lump all "liberals" into one bucket of uniform views opposite yours.
I could care less that she's a crony if she were qualified. I'm pissed because the only thing I have to go on is that the President chose her.
I agree. It's another high-ranking federal office turned into a political gift. It's abominable.

- David Stein

Mordred
10-03-05, 11:26 AM
So what proof is there for or against her abortion stance? The Operation: Rescue guy thinks she's pro-choice, but I'm finding it hard to believe Bush would nominate her if that was the case. If she is pro-choice I bet a LOT of people will be wishing they had voted for Kerry. :)

Red Dog
10-03-05, 11:34 AM
A quick tour of conservative blogs, courtesy Professor Kerr on volokh:

Reactions from the Conservative Blogosphere: I just took a quick tour of conservative blogs for reaction to the Miers nomination. A few excerpts:

Feddie at Southern Appeal:
I am done with President Bush: Harriet Miers? Are you freakin' kidding me?!
Can someone--anyone--make the case for Justice Miers on the merits? Seriously, this is the best the president could do?
. . . .
Un-freakin'-believable.
Oh, and if any of you RNC staffers are reading, you can take my name off the mailing list. I am not giving the national Republican Party another dime.


Right Wing News:
George Bush's decision to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is bitterly disappointing.
Miers is a Bush crony with no real conservative credentials, who leapfrogged legions of more deserving judges just because she was Bush's pal. She used to be Bush's staff secretary for God's sake and now she's going to the Supreme Court while people like Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown & Emilio Garza are being left on the sidelines.
To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection.


Michelle Malkin:
It's not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It's that she's so transparently a crony/"diversity" pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste. If this is President Bush's bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity--among conservatives as well as the nation at large--one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder.


Powerline:
This nominee is a two-fer — she would not have been selected but for her gender, and she would not have been selected but for her status as a Bush crony. So instead of a 50-year old conservative experienced jurist we get a 60-year old with no judicial experience who may or may not be conservative.
I was hoping that, because this is Bush's second term, he would thumb his nose at the diversity-mongers and appoint the best candidate. He thumbed his nose all right, but at conservatives.


William Kristol:
I'm disappointed, depressed and demoralized.
. . .
I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.


ConfirmThem.com:
We’ve got a lot to learn about SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers. To hear the White House tell us, "With her distinguished career and extensive community involvement, Ms. Miers would bring a wealth of personal experience and diversity to the Supreme Court."
Diversity. Sure she does. In fact, she gives money to Republicans *and* Democrats.
Mr. President, you’ve got some explaining to do. And please remember - we’ve been defending you these five years because of this moment.


Mark Levin at Bench Memos:
The president and his advisors missed a truly historic opportunity to communicate with the American people about their government, the role of all three branches of the federal system, and the proper function of the judiciary. More importantly, they have failed to help the nation return to the equipoise of our constitutional system. And the current justices whose arrogance knows no bounds will be emboldened by this selection. They will see it as affirmation of their "extra-constitutionalism." The president flinched. Some have compared have compared profligate spending to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. But no one will accuse him of FDR's boldness when it comes to the Supreme Court.
If people are disappointed, they have every reason to be.


Some bloggers are more positive, to be sure, but a surprising number aren't.

mosquitobite
10-03-05, 11:43 AM
Free Republic is NOT happy. Neither is DU.

:shrug:

Seems Bush is the *only* one happy with this nominee.

I can only hope Rove has some hidden "strategery" here :rolleyes:

al_bundy
10-03-05, 11:46 AM
if it makes anyone feel any better, during lunch I saw on MSNBC they mentioned that something like 100 of former SC justices didn't have any judicial experience when they were nominated

wendersfan
10-03-05, 11:47 AM
I know this is a bit farfetched, but what are the odds she won't get confirmed?

classicman2
10-03-05, 11:52 AM
I know this is a bit farfetched, but what are the odds she won't get confirmed?


It all depends on 7 Democrats.

I'm assuming that she's not to totally mess-up in the hearings - in other words, follow Roberts' example. Don't volunteer anything, and answer only what you 'feel comfortable' in answering.

Red Dog
10-03-05, 11:57 AM
I don't think she has the same ability as Roberts to deflect questions. Like I said in the Roberts thread - he had 25 IQ pts on the next highest person in the room. I seriously doubt the same can be said of Miers.

classicman2
10-03-05, 11:59 AM
A little sexism demonstrated by Red Dog. :lol:

Bandoman
10-03-05, 11:59 AM
Ms. Miers is single and very close to her family: two brothers and her mother live in Dallas, and a third brother lives in Houston.

Translation: She's a LESBIAN!! :eek:

classicman2
10-03-05, 12:01 PM
She's a cinch for confirmation then. No Democrat would dare oppose her. ;)

al_bundy
10-03-05, 12:01 PM
a conservative lesbian on the SC

let the battles begin

CaptainMarvel
10-03-05, 12:02 PM
Wow - over 30 years of practice and she's done a whole 125 hours of pro bono work. :lol:

Sure sounds like real worlder to me.

Let's be fair. :) I'm not real happy with her as a pick, but that bio said she logged those 125 hours while serving as president of the Texas State Bar (ie. within a 1 year period). 125 pro-bono hours in a year, particularly while serving as bar president, isn't exactly the same as 125 in "30 years of practice."

mosquitobite
10-03-05, 12:02 PM
Actually, my last hope is that Rove/Bush are using her (with her consent, of course). :shrug:

Have the nominee field all the questions she'll get from the committee and state her views clearly. This will show her to be in the "mainstream". It will throw off Schumer, Biden, et all and their questioning and grandstanding will further show them to be OUT of the mainstream. They will not vote for her, may even filibuster...
BAM!

The Republicans come out ahead in the view of the public (who will like most of Mier's positions).

:shrug:

Kicking can... hey - I can hope!

Goldblum
10-03-05, 12:02 PM
According to what I heard on the radio today, Bush has selected someone who donated to Al Gore's presidential campaign in 1988. :rolleyes:

Red Dog
10-03-05, 12:03 PM
Pretty quiet meanwhile on the liberal front. Alliance for Justice hasn't acknowledged the nomination yet. PFAW makes a neutral statement about her - far different than when Roberts was nominated.

Red Dog
10-03-05, 12:04 PM
According to what I heard on the radio today, Bush has selected someone who donated to Al Gore's presidential campaign in 1988. :rolleyes:


Yeah but that was when he was pro-life. ;)

al_bundy
10-03-05, 12:07 PM
did a google search and it looks like she has an ex-husband who is a conservative radio talk show host

Red Dog
10-03-05, 12:07 PM
I find it interesting that c-man seems to be only one defending this woman. Must be a don't mess with Texas thing.

mosquitobite
10-03-05, 12:08 PM
Pretty quiet meanwhile on the liberal front. Alliance for Justice hasn't acknowledged the nomination yet. PFAW makes a neutral statement about her - far different than when Roberts was nominated.

Reid suggested her to the President and Schumer is neutral.

:rolleyes:

ACLJ is in favor of her though. I think I read the Federalist Society is too.

mosquitobite
10-03-05, 12:10 PM
Leahy, who met with the president to discuss possible nominees for the seat, said that "many will be surprised that the president did not pick a Hispanic woman from the many qualified Hispanics across the country recommended to the president."
:rolleyes:

kvrdave
10-03-05, 12:11 PM
Translation: She's a LESBIAN!! :eek:

Yeah, but a 60 year old lesbian. Nothing to see here. :(

Red Dog
10-03-05, 12:13 PM
I think I read the Federalist Society is too.

I don't believe that the Fed Soc speaks in one voice like this.

classicman2
10-03-05, 12:22 PM
I'm not defending her.

I'm simply defending Bush's right to select who he wants to select.

Reid also initially said good things about Roberts.

Schumer was most likely neutral on Roberts at the outset.

classicman2
10-03-05, 12:25 PM
I personally would like a candidate who I could be certain would do 2 things:

1. Vote to overturn Roe

2. Return a modicum of sanity to the interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

Pharoh
10-03-05, 12:27 PM
It all depends on 7 Democrats.

I'm assuming that she's not to totally mess-up in the hearings - in other words, follow Roberts' example. Don't volunteer anything, and answer only what you 'feel comfortable' in answering.



I actually think the odds of her not making it are quite high. As I stated before, maybe a 30-40% chance of not making it.

Red Dog
10-03-05, 12:27 PM
I'm not defending her.

I'm simply defending Bush's right to select who he wants to select.

Reid also initially said good things about Roberts.

Schumer was most likely neutral on Roberts at the outset.


Is anyone denying that he has that right? He has the right to pick anyone he wants, crappy or otherwise.

classicman2
10-03-05, 12:30 PM
I actually think the odds of her not making it are quite high. As I stated before, maybe a 30-40% chance of not making it.

If the 7 Democrats 'honor their pledge,' I believe she's a shoo-in.

What could stop her? There would be enough votes for cloture. There would surely be a simple majority for her confirmation.

General Zod
10-03-05, 12:32 PM
If the 7 Democrats 'honor their pledge,' I believe she's a shoo-in.

What could stop her? There would be enough votes for cloture. There would surely be a simple majority for her confirmation.
That's true. If it's a straight party-line vote, she's in. From what i've been reading it sounds like he could have done worse, but I just personally would rather see someone who's been a judge before get the job.

classicman2
10-03-05, 12:35 PM
Even if they don't honor their pledge - I believe the odds are in her favor for confirmation.

Why? Because she's a woman. Republicans (including the 7) are aware that women decide the election. Therefore, it's good politics.

Red Dog
10-03-05, 12:36 PM
but I just personally would rather see someone who's been a judge before get the job.


I would have liked someone who has at least clerked for an appellate court (state or federal) judge before.

bhk
10-03-05, 12:36 PM
condi has always said that Bush is a great judge of character, we'll see if it is borne out. I wish he had picked someone who is a known conservative in the vein of Scalia. Then when the dems try to filibuster, have the sen change the rules and vote them in.

joshd2012
10-03-05, 12:37 PM
In other news, the New York Jets have signed Steven Muontos, currently the towel boy for the organization, as their back-up quarterback behind Vinny Testeverde who was recently acquired when Chad Pennington went down with a season-ending injury. When asked why sign a towel boy as your back-up quarterback, the Jets responded, "Steven was the starting quarterback at his highschool, and has been with this organization for a long time. We felt it was time to give him a shot. He's a great guy."

classicman2
10-03-05, 12:38 PM
I wonder how many SC justices never clerked in any court before?

classicman2
10-03-05, 12:40 PM
I wish he had picked someone who is a known conservative in the vein of Scalia.


Red Dog,

Do you consider Scalia to be a conservative?

wendersfan
10-03-05, 12:42 PM
Yeah, but a 60 year old lesbian. Nothing to see here. :(
:sad:

<img src = "http://www.heightwatchers.de/bilder/choksdondik.jpg" width = 200></img>

-ohbfrank- :)

Red Dog
10-03-05, 12:42 PM
In other news, the New York Jets have signed Steven Muontos, currently the towel boy for the organization, as their back-up quarterback behind Vinny Testeverde who was recently acquired when Chad Pennington went down with a season-ending injury. When asked why sign a towel boy as your back-up quarterback, the Jets responded, "Steven was the starting quarterback at his highschool, and has been with this organization for a long time. We felt it was time to give him a shot. He's a great guy."


Now now. This is more like signing the traveling secretary - like George Constanza - for backup QB. ;)

Red Dog
10-03-05, 12:45 PM
Red Dog,

Do you consider Scalia to be a conservative?


Political? Yes.

Judicial? Not as much as I used to believe. Regardless, he is more conservative judicially than the vast majority of jurists.

mosquitobite
10-03-05, 01:03 PM
"economic conservatives pleased by her corporate law background may find it distressing that in 1990 Miers voted for a 7 percent property tax increase during her short tenure on the Dallas City Council. And Miers's long affiliation with the ABA will serve up lots of interesting tidbits that are unlikely to please social and legal conservatives. For instance, she apparently submitted the following report to the ABA's House of Delegates. Here are two of the report's recommendations:"

Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. ...

Recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court.

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=2832

wendersfan
10-03-05, 01:07 PM
As shocked as I was over the nomination of Miers, I'm even more shocked to find out <b>mosquitobite</b> reads <i>The New Republic</i>. ;)

Th0r S1mpson
10-03-05, 01:12 PM
Free Republic is NOT happy. Neither is DU.

Sounds like it could be a good nominee then. :D

Honestly... if nothing is known about this woman and she comes as <b>such</b> a shock to the world... how did she find her way onto some lists of "most likely nominations" to begin with?

classicman2
10-03-05, 01:14 PM
Chuck Schumer: "The extreme wing of their party is not close to the majority of the American people."

Newsflash, Chuck: "The extreme of your party is not close to the majority of the American people either."

Red Dog
10-03-05, 01:15 PM
Sounds like it could be a good nominee then. :D

Honestly... if nothing is known about this woman and she comes as <b>such</b> a shock to the world... how did she find her way onto some lists of "most likely nominations" to begin with?


Probably because she was tasked with leading the nominee search. Recall that Dick Cheney was tasked with leading the Veep search. Look what happened there.

mosquitobite
10-03-05, 01:16 PM
I'm reading everything I can about her.
:shrug:

bhk
10-03-05, 01:19 PM
Chuck Schumer: "The extreme wing of their party is not close to the majority of the American people."


Chuckie, have you looked at the results of the last few elections?

wendersfan
10-03-05, 01:23 PM
I'm reading everything I can about her.
:shrug:I read <i>TNR</i> religiously. :)

Ranger
10-03-05, 02:11 PM
Well, she couldn't be any worse than O'Conner, right?

mosquitobite
10-03-05, 02:21 PM
Depends on how you view Souter. :shrug:

lordwow
10-03-05, 02:29 PM
DNC: "We're shocked and appalled Bush would choose a conservative. We're going to vote against her."

Or something like that.

RoyalTea
10-03-05, 03:04 PM
If he's going to nominate a woman, can't he nominate an attractive woman?

CRM114
10-03-05, 03:04 PM
According to what I heard on the radio today, Bush has selected someone who donated to Al Gore's presidential campaign in 1988. :rolleyes:

And Lloyd Bentsen! :lol: Way to go Georgie Boy!

CRM114
10-03-05, 03:05 PM
I find it interesting that c-man seems to be only one defending this woman. Must be a don't mess with Texas thing.

classicman is a ladies man. He already conceded his vote for Condoleeza Rice because of her purty eyes.

CRM114
10-03-05, 03:08 PM
condi has always said that Bush is a great judge of character, we'll see if it is borne out. I wish he had picked someone who is a known conservative in the vein of Scalia. Then when the dems try to filibuster, have the sen change the rules and vote them in.

Wusses! :lol: ;)

mosquitobite
10-03-05, 03:10 PM
Great...

*biting my tongue*

:lol:

CRM114
10-03-05, 03:13 PM
Newsflash, Chuck: "The extreme of your party is not close to the majority of the American people either."

Wrong. Its all how you ask the question. If you asked 1) Do you favor a clean environment? and 2) do you support worker's rights? I'd bet that you'd get a radically left slanted response. The problem is the conservatives win on a single issue that trumps all others: Do you want lower taxes? Sad really.

bhk
10-03-05, 03:14 PM
Wusses!
the republicans in the Senate certainly are but I'd use a "p" instead of a "w" to describe them. They need to be hammered upside the head with a 2x4 to let them know that they are in the majority and to act like it.

CRM114
10-03-05, 03:16 PM
the republicans in the Senate certainly are but I'd use a "p" instead of a "w" to describe them. They need to be hammered upside the head with a 2x4 to let them know that they are in the majority and to act like it.

I actually posted the "P" word but the filter made it into asterisks! :)

I really don't know what to think about George. I was concerned about this second term but now it seems comical. The unfortunate thing is he's going to leave the rest of us a giant debt and an ugly geopolitical climate when he goes.

classicman2
10-03-05, 03:17 PM
I don't know whether Ms. Miers is an originalist, strict constructionist, conservative, etc.

I do know that the man who selected her has known her for, what, 15 years? I would think he is more aware of her 'leanings' than anyone on this forum and the conservative groups who are already attacking her. He was probably able to ask her questions he wouldn't ask another potential nominee.

Did he consider the politics when he nominated - probably. Let's face it. It's going to be harder for some Democrats to oppose a woman. Yes, I realize they opposed a couple for Circuit Court nominations, but this is different - much higher profile. Far, far more Americans (including voters) will be interested in this nomination than a Circuit Court nomination.

CRM114
10-03-05, 03:18 PM
But people are concerned that W's leanings aren't at all conservative as he's made people believe. Would Republicans vote against this woman?

classicman2
10-03-05, 03:21 PM
But people are concerned that W's leanings aren't at all conservative as he's made people believe. Would Republicans vote against this woman?

So you now admit it - Bush is really a centrist.

The answer is no - Republicans wouldn't vote against her.

classicman2
10-03-05, 03:22 PM
However, nearly a third of the 109 justices in U.S. history were not judges including Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

classicman2
10-03-05, 03:28 PM
Fox News

Miers Pushed ABA on Abortion

WASHINGTON — President Bush's choice to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice and moderate abortion rights supporter Sandra Day O'Connor was a leader in an unsuccessful fight to get the nation's largest lawyers' group to reconsider its pro-abortion rights stance.

As president of the Texas State Bar in 1993, Harriet Miers urged the national American Bar Association to put the abortion issue to a referendum of the group's full membership. She questioned at the time whether the ABA should "be trying to speak for the entire legal community" on an issue that she said "has brought on tremendous divisiveness" within the ABA.

Miers was among a group of lawyers from the Texas bar and elsewhere who had argued that the ABA should have a neutral stance on abortion.

The ABA's policy-making body overwhelmingly rejected the Texas lawyers' group's 1993 proposal to put the issue to a referendum by mail of the ABA's then-roster of about 360,000 members.

"Our current position [in favor of abortion rights] has no meaning unless it is endorsed in fact by the membership," Miers said at the time.

The ABA's position, adopted in 1992, endorses the basic outlines of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling that women may choose to have an abortion without state interference prior to the point at which a fetus could live outside the womb, and after that point if the woman's life or health were threatened by the pregnancy.

Although Miers' personal view of abortion was not explicit in 1993, Leonard Leo, a White House adviser on Supreme Court nominations highlighted her efforts as part of the reason that "conservatives should be very happy with this selection."

"As a leader of the bar, Harriet Miers was a fearless and very strong proponent of conservative legal views. She led a campaign to have the American Bar Association end its practice of supporting abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded abortions," Leo said a memo on the Miers nomination.

Miers was very active in the ABA, and senators will probably question Miers about deep divisions within the organization about the abortion question and the ABA's role in taking policy positions.

The ABA briefly held the neutral position Miers and others supported — from 1990 to 1992.

Red Dog
10-03-05, 03:31 PM
However, nearly a third of the 109 justices in U.S. history were not judges including Chief Justice William Rehnquist.


Neither was Powell, but Powell and Rehnquist certainly had more impressive legal backgrounds than Miers.

The lack of judicial experience is not a deal-breaker, but I think judicial experience is a major plus, as an appellate clerkship would be. I'd like to see at least one or the other.

Heck, even LBJ's crony nominee Fortas could say he headed the SEC, was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, founded a powerful DC law firm (Arnold, Fortas, and Porter) and represented the winning side (pro bono) in one of the most famous criminal procedure cases ever: Gideon v. Wainright.

classicman2
10-03-05, 03:46 PM
I personally would like to see an Arkansas hog farmer on the high court. ;)

He'd bring a little real-down-to-earth experience (needed I believe) to the court.

Jadzia
10-03-05, 04:19 PM
The real question is, what is Bush's "special pal" nickname for her?

DJLinus
10-03-05, 04:55 PM
The real question is, what is Bush's "special pal" nickname for her?

From Reason Magazine's blog:

We Have a Nickname
Wow. So apparently, upon learning of the Miers nomination, both the National Review folk and I thought immediately of Caligula's fabled desire to appoint his favorite horse to the Roman Senate consul. Since we know Bush is fond of bestowing cute nicknames on his familiars, I think that's enough to suggest we've got the perfect one for prospective-Justice Miers: Incitatus. Or, if she's confirmed, Justice Incitatus.

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/10/we_have_a_nickn.shtml

classicman2
10-03-05, 06:23 PM
Well if the comments of Harry Reid & especially, Mark Pryor, mean anything. She's got clear sailing - so far.

nemein
10-03-05, 06:52 PM
Anyone listen to the News Hour? Did Schumer really say idology was more important tha qualifications? It sounded like he said that's what they would look at first. Does that seem right?

X
10-03-05, 06:55 PM
I personally would like to see an Arkansas hog farmer on the high court. ;)Can Bill Clinton still do that after losing his law license? Oh, he's only got the "Arkansas" and "hog" part covered anyway.

CRM114
10-03-05, 08:27 PM
Anyone listen to the News Hour? Did Schumer really say idology was more important tha qualifications? It sounded like he said that's what they would look at first. Does that seem right?

You would hope since Miers definitely does not seem qualified in the least.

"Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job."

Jason
10-03-05, 09:05 PM
From Reason Magazine's blog:



http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/10/we_have_a_nickn.shtml

Does anyone really think that bush could pronounce Incitatus?

Supermallet
10-03-05, 09:51 PM
I personally would like a candidate who I could be certain would do 2 things:

1. Vote to overturn Roe

2. Return a modicum of sanity to the interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

1. I didn't know you were pro-life.

2. What insane interpretations are currently being applied, in your opinion?

CRM114
10-03-05, 10:03 PM
William Kristol: 'I'm disappointed, depressed and demoralized'
Pat Buchanan:'Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'
Rush Limbaugh: 'A pick made from weakness'

bhk
10-03-05, 11:19 PM
I would have loved to have a hard right conservative and explode the nuclear option on Schmuck's ass but I guess Bush doesn't.

CaptainMarvel
10-03-05, 11:26 PM
1. I didn't know you were pro-life.

Anti-Roe doesn't mean pro-life. I'm very pro-abortion, but I think Roe was a bad decision.

Even if you support the idea of a Constitutional right to abortion, Roe still might not sit well with you simply because of how that right was granted.

Lemdog
10-04-05, 12:05 AM
I personally would like a candidate who could tell me what the 11th Amendment means.

Supermallet
10-04-05, 01:31 AM
Anti-Roe doesn't mean pro-life. I'm very pro-abortion, but I think Roe was a bad decision.

Even if you support the idea of a Constitutional right to abortion, Roe still might not sit well with you simply because of how that right was granted.

I know, I was just trying to rile up c-man. ;)

And Catherine Crier had a good point on CNBC the other night about Roe and other "activist" decisions. The interviewer said, "A lot of people say that courts should leave legislating to legislators, and as such want to overturn things like Roe vs. Wade. What do you say to that?" Her response was, "Sometimes the court has to make decisions, because the legislator isn't there yet. Like in Brown vs. Board of Education. The legislator at the time simply wasn't ready to say 'No, separate yet equal doesn't work.' It was up to the courts to do that." And that's how I feel about Roe vs. Wade. I don't think for one second that it should be overturned. It shouldn't even be up for debate.

classicman2
10-04-05, 06:40 AM
1. I believe the justification for the Roe v. Wade decision came from thin air (a social decision) - not the Constitution.

2. I'm opposed to abortion.

al_bundy
10-04-05, 07:03 AM
I know, I was just trying to rile up c-man. ;)

And Catherine Crier had a good point on CNBC the other night about Roe and other "activist" decisions. The interviewer said, "A lot of people say that courts should leave legislating to legislators, and as such want to overturn things like Roe vs. Wade. What do you say to that?" Her response was, "Sometimes the court has to make decisions, because the legislator isn't there yet. Like in Brown vs. Board of Education. The legislator at the time simply wasn't ready to say 'No, separate yet equal doesn't work.' It was up to the courts to do that." And that's how I feel about Roe vs. Wade. I don't think for one second that it should be overturned. It shouldn't even be up for debate.

the legal justification for RvW and Brown are very different from each other

mosquitobite
10-04-05, 07:25 AM
the legal justification for RvW and Brown are very different from each other

That's what I was thinking. That was a piss poor comparison, based solely on feel good emotion. What's that called?

Brown - good decision, therefore so is Roe -ohbfrank-

mosquitobite
10-04-05, 07:45 AM
Daily Kos on the Miers Nomination: An excerpt:
I reserve the right to change my mind, but Miers' biggest sin, at this early juncture, is her allegiance to Bush. That her appointment is an act of cronyism is without a doubt, but if that's the price of admission to another Souter or moderate justice, I'm willing to pay it.
. . .
[M]y early sense is that this is already a victory -- both politically and judicially -- for Democrats. In fact, it should be great fund watching conservatives go after Bush. He may actually break that 39-40 floor in the polls, given he's just pissed off the very people who have propped up his failed presidency.

wendersfan
10-04-05, 08:15 AM
That's what I was thinking. That was a piss poor comparison, based solely on feel good emotion. What's that called?

Brown - good decision, therefore so is Roe -ohbfrank-Well, it's somehow part and parcel with the kool-aid drinking mentality that a lot of people have these days. This mentality encourages people to think they must either support every landmark decision made by the Warren court, or be against every decision made by that court. The idea that some of the decisions may have been good, but others not, doesn't fit in well when you think you have to choose sides. Now I know that <i>Roe</i> was handed down by the Burger court, but it fits in with the general era of 'liberal judicial activism'. I personally don't think that <i>Raich</i> was any less 'activist' than anything the court handed down in the 60s.

David Brooks had an editorial a few months ago where he opposed <i>Roe</i>, not based on any particular stance on abortion he has, but because it pre-emptively took the discussion over this issue away from the people. Consequently, pro-choice advocates don't try to sway people to their point of view, they just use scare tactics to maintain a delicate balance on the SCt. The pro-birth side employs the same approach in reverse.

Red Dog
10-04-05, 08:29 AM
Well, it's somehow part and parcel with the kool-aid drinking mentality that a lot of people have these days. This mentality encourages people to think they must either support every landmark decision made by the Warren court, or be against every decision made by that court. The idea that some of the decisions may have been good, but others not, doesn't fit in well when you think you have to choose sides. Now I know that <i>Roe</i> was handed down by the Burger court, but it fits in with the general era of 'liberal judicial activism'. I personally don't think that <i>Raich</i> was any less 'activist' than anything the court handed down in the 60s.

David Brooks had an editorial a few months ago where he opposed <i>Roe</i>, not based on any particular stance on abortion he has, but because it pre-emptively took the discussion over this issue away from the people. Consequently, pro-choice advocates don't try to sway people to their point of view, they just use scare tactics to maintain a delicate balance on the SCt. The pro-birth side employs the same approach in reverse.


Frankly, I find Brown to be pretty lacking and I never thought Plessy to be the abomination that everyone else seems to make it out to be. However, I don't have the problem with Brown that I do with Roe because I can come up with my own equal protection argument to justify the desegregation in that case.

Red Dog
10-04-05, 08:32 AM
So any chance this unqualified crony gets the message and withdraws her nomination?

classicman2
10-04-05, 08:38 AM
Although the Brown decision was 9-0, there were 2-3 justices who didn't believe Plessy violated the EPC - Jackson being one of them.

So any chance this crony gets the message and withdraws her nomination?

Do you really have to ask that question? No! :)

Red Dog
10-04-05, 08:50 AM
Do you really have to ask that question? No! :)


Given some of your predictions of the past, your prediction here could mean good news. ;)



Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted Oct 3, 2005

Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day -- to name his personal lawyer.

In a decision deeply disheartening to those who invested such hopes in him, Bush may have tossed away his and our last chance to roll back the social revolution imposed upon us by our judicial dictatorship since the days of Earl Warren.

This is not to disparage Harriet Miers. From all accounts, she is a gracious lady who has spent decades in the law and served ably as Bush’s lawyer in Texas and, for a year, as White House counsel.

But her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent. She is not a brilliant jurist, indeed, has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers are hard-pressed to dig up an opinion. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum. Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered.

What commended her to the White House, in the phrase of the hour, is that she “has no paper trail.” So far as one can see, this is Harriet Miers’ principal qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court.

What is depressing here is not what the nomination tells us of her, but what it tells us of the president who appointed her. For in selecting her, Bush capitulated to the diversity-mongers, used a critical Supreme Court seat to reward a crony, and revealed that he lacks the desire to engage the Senate in fierce combat to carry out his now-suspect commitment to remake the court in the image of Scalia and Thomas. In picking her, Bush ran from a fight. The conservative movement has been had -- and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush.

Choosing Miers, the president passed over outstanding judges and proven constitutionalists like Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit and Sam Alito of the 3rd. And if he could not take the heat from the First Lady, and had to name a woman, what was wrong with U.S. appellate court judges Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens and Edith Jones?

What must these jurists think today about their president today? How does Bush explain to his people why Brown, Owens and Jones were passed over for Miers?

Where was Karl Rove in all of this? Is he so distracted by the Valerie Plame investigation he could not warn the president against what he would be doing to his reputation and coalition?

Reshaping the Supreme Court is an issue that unites Republicans and conservatives And with his White House and party on the defensive for months over Cindy Sheehan and Katrina, Iraq and New Orleans, Delay and Frist, gas prices and immigration, here was the great opportunity to draw all together for a battle of philosophies, by throwing the gauntlet down to the Left, sending up the name of a Luttig, and declaring, “Go ahead and do your worst. We shall do our best.”

Do the Bushites not understand that “conservative judges” is one of those issues where the national majority is still with them?

What does it tell us that White House, in selling her to the party and press, is pointing out that Miers “has no paper trial.” What does that mean, other than that she is not a Rehnquist, a Bork, a Scalia or a Thomas?

Conservative cherish justices and judges who have paper trails. For that means these men and women have articulated and defended their convictions. They have written in magazines and law journals about what is wrong with the courts and how to make it right. They had stood up to the prevailing winds. They have argued for the Constitution as the firm and fixed document the Founding Fathers wrote, not some thing of wax.

A paper trail is the mark of a lawyer, a scholar or a judge who has shared the action and passion of his or her time, taken a stand on the great questions, accepted public abuse for articulating convictions.

Why is a judicial cipher like Harriet Miers to be preferred to a judicial conservative like Edith Jones?

One reason: Because the White House fears nominees “with a paper trail” will be rejected by the Senate, and this White House fears, above all else, losing. So, it has chosen not to fight.

Bush had a chance for greatness in remaking the Supreme Court, a chance to succeed where his Republican precedessors from Nixon to his father all failed. He instinctively recoiled from it. He blew it. His only hope now is that Harriet Miers, if confirmed, will not vote like the lady she replaced, or, worse, like his father’s choice who also had “no paper trail,” David Souter.



I have to agree with Pat.

mosquitobite
10-04-05, 08:58 AM
Yep. Democrats should be happy. Bush43 just gave us his "Read my lips" moment. 2006 just tipped in their favor. Shameful Bush squandered the Republican power for a crony pick.

mosquitobite
10-04-05, 09:15 AM
Federalist 76:
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."

al_bundy
10-04-05, 09:24 AM
i was watching CNBC the other day and they said that the last thing GWB wants is another Scalia or Thomas on the court. The reason being is that their brand of conservatism is bad for business. He wants a pro-business conservatist on the court.

sracer
10-04-05, 09:33 AM
Yep. Democrats should be happy. Bush43 just gave us his "Read my lips" moment. 2006 just tipped in their favor. Shameful Bush squandered the Republican power for a crony pick.
The fact that she's a crony is only a secondary... or more likely a tertiary point.

Poll numbers are low for the President. Recent poll results talked about the general dissatisfaction with perceived "hyper-partisanship". As a lame duck president, he is looking towards what is going to help the party in '08 (at least what is told to him by party leaders). If Bush were to nominate a hardcore conservative, there'd be huge fight. The perception would be that Bush is being uncooperative by nominating someone that supports his (alleged) agenda. The backlash of such a nomination would be taken out on Republicans in '06 and again in '08.

Is there anyone who voted for Bush in 04 that is going to go Democrat in '06 or '08 because of this nominee?!

http://www.ket.org/images/nola/ONON/ONON__001835.1151647.200x150.jpg
The answer is No. buh-bye.

sracer
10-04-05, 09:41 AM
Unfortunately that is not the alternative. The potentially harmful alternative is that they simply stay home on election day.
Whether they stay home or not on election day will be determined by the Republican candidate... NOT who Bush has nominated to the Supreme Court.

Pharoh
10-04-05, 09:41 AM
The fact that she's a crony is only a secondary... or more likely a tertiary point.

Poll numbers are low for the President. Recent poll results talked about the general dissatisfaction with perceived "hyper-partisanship". As a lame duck president, he is looking towards what is going to help the party in '08 (at least what is told to him by party leaders). If Bush were to nominate a hardcore conservative, there'd be huge fight. The perception would be that Bush is being uncooperative by nominating someone that supports his (alleged) agenda. The backlash of such a nomination would be taken out on Republicans in '06 and again in '08.

Is there anyone who voted for Bush in 04 that is going to go Democrat in '06 or '08 because of this nominee?!

http://www.ket.org/images/nola/ONON/ONON__001835.1151647.200x150.jpg
The answer is No. buh-bye.



Unfortunately that is not the alternative. The potentially harmful alternative is that they simply stay home on election day.

Pharoh
10-04-05, 09:43 AM
Federalist 76:
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."



Reading Opinion Journal today?
;)


However wise those words may have been when written, I am absolutely positive that Mr. Hamilton would have supported wholeheartedly this move by President Bush.

mosquitobite
10-04-05, 09:53 AM
Reading Opinion Journal today?
;)


Yep :)

X
10-04-05, 10:05 AM
Is there anyone who voted for Bush in 04 that is going to go Democrat in '06 or '08 because of this nominee?!

http://www.ket.org/images/nola/ONON/ONON__001835.1151647.200x150.jpg
The answer is No. buh-bye.If you track of his predictions I doubt you'd be using him as an example.

Mordred
10-04-05, 10:13 AM
Yep. Democrats should be happy. Bush43 just gave us his "Read my lips" moment. 2006 just tipped in their favor. Shameful Bush squandered the Republican power for a crony pick.Except Bush isn't trying to win re-election and so he can renege and it won't hurt him a bit, so long as he doesn't care about his legacy or the Republicans winning the midterms. By 2008 no one is going to care that the last Republican president lied to them.

nemein
10-04-05, 10:18 AM
We'll see what happens but in response to a question Bush was just asked at a press conference it sounds like they might claim "executive privilege" again wrt Miers recent work/writings. BTW is it just me or does Bush seem to be giving more press conferences these days?

X
10-04-05, 10:19 AM
I believe the last one was around May.

<a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6435508#post6435508">how did scracer quote Pharoh before Pharoh posted?</a>

nemein
10-04-05, 10:28 AM
I believe the last one was around May.


That's what the CSPAN announcer just said as well, but have there been several "Q&A sessions" (wrt Roberts, the hurricanes, Iraq, etc) recently? It just seems like recently CSPAN has been running a host of such things. How that differs from a press conference though I'm not sure...

wendersfan
10-04-05, 10:48 AM
<b>mosquitobite</b>'s favorite publication, <i>The New Republic</i> (;)) has en editorial today comparing GWB's appointment/nomination style with forum favorite Harry S Truman:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051003&s=stuntz100405

mosquitobite
10-04-05, 10:59 AM
That's what the CSPAN announcer just said as well, but have there been several "Q&A sessions" (wrt Roberts, the hurricanes, Iraq, etc) recently? It just seems like recently CSPAN has been running a host of such things. How that differs from a press conference though I'm not sure...

When you're constantly on the defense, that's what happens...

bhk
10-04-05, 11:54 AM
Bush has had other things on his mind recently and answering biased, inane questions from presstitutes is probably low on the priority list.

Red Dog
10-04-05, 11:55 AM
However wise those words may have been when written, I am absolutely positive that Mr. Hamilton would have supported wholeheartedly this move by President Bush.


Sorry, but I'm with Professor Barnett (one of my favorite constitutional law/originalist scholars). No way Hamilton would have gone for this bullshit selection.

If he wanted to reward her, he should have given her Roberts' seat on the DC Circuit.

RoyalTea
10-04-05, 12:02 PM
<a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6435508#post6435508">how did scracer quote Pharoh before Pharoh posted?</a>

X
10-04-05, 12:17 PM
<a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6435508#post6435508">how did scracer quote Pharoh before Pharoh posted?</a>I don't know (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6435608#post6435608).

RoyalTea
10-04-05, 12:33 PM
I don't know (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6435608#post6435608).whoa, that's freaky.

al_bundy
10-04-05, 12:51 PM
www.drudgereport.com

is bush trying to appoint a souter on purpose?

Red Dog
10-04-05, 01:01 PM
www.drudgereport.com

is bush trying to appoint a souter on purpose?


It wouldn't surprise me. He's rarely if ever demonstrated conservatism.

wendersfan
10-04-05, 01:11 PM
I think more than a few of you will get a chuckle out of this new blog I discovered a few minutes ago:

http://jmluttig.blogspot.com/

Ranger
10-04-05, 01:22 PM
So any chance this unqualified crony gets the message and withdraws her nomination?
Absolutely, and for tomorrow, Bush will admit that the Iraq war was a mistake.

classicman2
10-04-05, 01:39 PM
Whether they stay home or not on election day will be determined by the Republican candidate... NOT who Bush has nominated to the Supreme Court.

I don't agree with that.

A certain segment of the Republican electorate has clearly demonstrated they will stay at home if they feel their wishes are being ignored. Witness 1992: They stayed at home in droves, because they felt George H. W. Bush had ignored them, after turning out for him in droves in 1988.

wendersfan
10-04-05, 01:44 PM
I don't agree with that.

A certain segment of the Republican electorate has clearly demonstrated they will stay at home if they feel their wishes are being ignored. Witness 1992: They stayed at home in droves, because they felt George H. W. Bush had ignored them, after turning out for him in droves in 1988.The circumstances here are very different. It seems unlikely that as many voters will desert the Republican Party in 2006 because of GWB's nominations as deserted GHWB because of his tax policies. I just don't see that many GOP voters abondoning the 2008 nominee because of something the previous president did. In other words, "this time, it's <b>not</b> personal."

X
10-04-05, 01:47 PM
The circumstances here are very different. It seems unlikely that as many voters will desert the Republican Party in 2006 because of GWB's nominations as deserted GHWB because of his tax policies. I just don't see that many GOP voters abondoning the 2008 nominee because of something the previous president did. In other words, "this time, it's <b>not</b> personal."Unless there's a bona fide conservative running it will be hard to energize that part of the base. Cheney or Rice could have some trouble in that regard.

And certainly, saying "I'm going to continue the policies of our current president" won't cut it. People who can make the deciding vote won't be looking for continuity.

wendersfan
10-04-05, 01:49 PM
Unless there's a bona fide conservative running it will be hard to energize that part of the base. Cheney or Rice could have some trouble in that regard.

And certainly, saying "I'm going to continue the policies of our current president" won't cut it. People who can make the deciding vote won't be looking for continuity.I don't think Cheney and Rice will be running, and whoever ends up being the nominee, I don't think continuity with the previous administration's policies will be high on their list of campaign pledges.

wendersfan
10-04-05, 01:53 PM
That sounds like a good opportunity for the Democrat to win then. I don't think promising a big shift from the previous administration of the same party is a real winning platform.
Not to continue with this slight thread detour much longer, but I think the lack of any decent, credible, and charismatic Democratic candidate will once again be the GOP's saving grace, come 2008.

X
10-04-05, 01:55 PM
...I don't think continuity with the previous administration's policies will be high on their list of campaign pledges.That sounds like a good opportunity for the Democrat to win then. I don't think promising a big shift from the previous administration of the same party is a real winning platform.

wendersfan
10-04-05, 01:57 PM
Creepy.

ETA, I posted this after your comment about Geoff's cat/time machine.

Super-creepy.

X
10-04-05, 01:59 PM
Uh oh, the cat accidentally turned on Geoff's time machine again.

classicman2
10-04-05, 02:09 PM
I don't think Cheney and Rice will be running, and whoever ends up being the nominee, I don't think continuity with the previous administration's policies will be high on their list of campaign pledges.

It depends on events. If Iraq 'turns out o.k.', I believe whoever the Republican candidate is will be singing the praises (at least in the foreign policy area) of the Bush administration.

mosquitobite
10-04-05, 02:37 PM
I didn't vote for Bush in 2004 because he wasn't conservative enough for me ;)

You betcha ass this is a "read my lips" type of broken promise. If the base stayed home in 1992 because of Bush41, I wouldn't doubt the same for 2006. Especially pending some of the decisions coming down the pipeline.

mikehunt
10-04-05, 06:58 PM
we have enough of this "friends and family" shit in Erie County
I don't need it from Bush too
I don't care that she's not a judge, but pikcing her because she's a close friend is fucking stupid

DVD Polizei
10-05-05, 06:14 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9593793/

Well, there you go. Not surprising, she's one of the Jesus Must Save The Little Spermies And Eggs freaks.

"Life Begins At Conception." - Mier

nemein
10-05-05, 06:45 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9593793/

Well, there you go. Not surprising, she's one of the Jesus Must Save The Little Spermies And Eggs freaks.

"Life Begins At Conception." - Mier


Yep... there you go

Hecht and other confidants of Miers all pledge that if the Senate confirms her nomination to the Supreme Court, her judicial values will be guided by the law and the Constitution.

mosquitobite
10-05-05, 08:04 AM
Forget the Souters? No More Cliftons!

The nomination of Harriet Miers has caused a great deal of consternation among liberals and conservatives alike. Miers is a blank slate and both sides are coloring the blank with their own ideology.

Some however are adopting the attitude that President Bush knows what he is doing. There is no need to be concerned that Miers is a liberal in conservatives clothing like Justice David Souter was.

Souter, as you may recall, was the Supreme Court nominee peddled to Bush 41 by John Sununu as a conservative. Once he became a Justice, he morphed into a liberal.

Since Bush 43 knows Miers personally, that is not likely to happen. So goes the theory anyway.

The Wall Street Journal seems to ascribe to this theory. On October 4, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal termed the appellate court appointments of President George W. Bush as“ uniformly solid, and often distinguished.” The WSJ editorial board has taken the approach that by nominating Harriet Miers, someone he knows, Bush chose the anti-Souter candidate.

This may come as a surprise to some, however, while the WSJ is a conservative paper – it is not a staunchly conservative. The Journal could best be characterized as fiscally conservative, socially moderate.

Not that there is anything wrong with this. The Republican Party is not the monolith the Democratic Party is. Republicans span a continuum from Evangelicals to Country Clubbers. Another way to conceptualize this would be to think in terms of strictly conservative Republicans who are small government, pro-capital punishment, anti-abortion, pro-national defense and pro- corporate capitalists, while other Republicans are pro-abortion, anti-capital punishment, yet pro-defense and pro-business.

It seems that Bush selects his judicial appointments with more concern to their economic pro-business beliefs than their social abortion/capital punishment etc philosophies.

The WSJ editorial board notwithstanding, not all of his appellate court appointments have been solid conservatives. The most egregious example has been his Ninth Circuit Court appointment of Richard Clifton.

Clifton was nominated by Bush in 2001 and confirmed in 2002. He was a Honolulu attorney endorsed by the local papers and considered qualified by the ABA.

Clifton wrote, in 2003, two of the most bizarre opinions ever. Both concerned criminal cases - one an armed robbery case and one a homicide. Both would have been the envy of liberal judges everywhere.

On May 21, 2003, the United States Ninth Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of an armed California bank robber, Deshon Rene Odom, because he “never intentionally displayed the gun.”

Odom pulled the robbery with an accomplice, both of whom were arrested outside the bank carrying loaded revolvers. The ruling, written by Clifton rationalized, “Can a bank robber with a concealed gun who never mentions or insinuates having one, but who displays it inadvertently, be convicted of armed bank robbery? We believe the answer is no….”

Clifton also wrote a similarly brilliant opinion a few months later. This involved a case of convicted murderer requesting habeas corpus.

This case involved a man, who threatened to kill - and who did subsequently did kill another person. The murderer was acting with two other friends at the time.

Rather than become mired in the legal ennui, suffice to somehow, Clifton and his judicial colleagues felt that - even though the convicted murderer was banging on the victim’s window and yelling that he wanted to kill him – an intent to kill was not demonstrated.

Judge Clifton, unfortunately, is not an unusual Bush appointee.

Bush’s appointments to the Texas Supreme Court were all pro-business and socially moderate to liberal. During his tenure he appointed Greg Abbott, James Baker, Deborah Hankinson, and Al Gonzales. Of these only, Abbott voted in favor of a law requiring parental notification for abortion.

This seems to be the template of Roberts and Miers.

Just as his father did not keep the pledge of no new taxes Bush does not seem to have kept the pledge of judicial appointments like Scalia and Thomas. His appointments are more like O’Connor and Kennedy.

The best thing one can say of President Bush’s judicial appointments – appellate and Supreme Court – are that they are not Kerry or Gore’s appointments.

Michael P. Tremoglie is a writer whose work has appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News, Human Events, Front Page and Insight magazines. He is working on his first novel 'A Sense of Duty'.

Duran
10-05-05, 08:24 AM
George Will's commentary - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954.html

Can This Nomination Be Justified?

By George F. Will

Wednesday, October 5, 2005;

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to ensure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance that he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, "I agree." Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, "I do."

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Under the rubric of "diversity" -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can be understood, empathized with and represented only by a member of that group.

The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who "legislate from the bench."

Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, Jordan said, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, "discriminated against" because of her gender.

Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?

classicman2
10-05-05, 08:32 AM
I wonder how many conservatives still pay attention to what George Will says?

VinVega
10-05-05, 09:32 AM
Is this the official end of Bush's political capital? He may need to charge it to the national debt if he needs any more capital.

B.A.
10-05-05, 10:50 AM
What a craptacular nomination by the Oval Office.

classicman2
10-05-05, 12:10 PM
Is this the official end of Bush's political capital? He may need to charge it to the national debt if he needs any more capital.

It doesn't take a great deal of political capital to nominate someone.

Where it takes political capital is whether you choose to go the mat for that nominee. Bush has given no indication that he is willing to expend that political capital. I shouldn't say no expenditure - simply precious little.

mosquitobite
10-05-05, 12:25 PM
Exactly. Bush is a pansy. And so are the RINOs in the Senate.

classicman2
10-05-05, 12:56 PM
So your definition of a RINO is someone who is not a complete right-wing idealogue such as yourself? ;)

mosquitobite
10-05-05, 02:23 PM
So your definition of a RINO is someone who is not a complete right-wing idealogue such as yourself? ;)

Yep. The RINOs are why I voted libertarian in 2004. ;)

And depends on what you mean by right wing idealogue. The right wingers who are happy that Dobson has signed off on Miers are the one issue idiots who don't give a shit about the Republican platform except one issue. THEY don't really give a shit about spending, judicial activism, federalism, or anything but abortion.

They are to the right wing what NARAL is to the left wing, but I believe in much bigger numbers.

Who would have thought ONE issue could bereft both parties of their agendas at the same time. ;)

And for the record, I don't have a position on that issue! It's something the government shouldn't be in one way or the other!

LurkerDan
10-05-05, 02:31 PM
The Republican Party is not the monolith the Democratic Party is.
The article lost all legitimacy after this statement.

uberjoe
10-05-05, 02:31 PM
And for the record, I don't have a position on that issue! It's something the government shouldn't be in one way or the other!

"Keeping the government out" would seem to be a position to me. Am I missing something?

classicman2
10-05-05, 03:08 PM
I don't believe either party is monolithic.

I hate to use abortion as a example, but about the same percentage of folks who call themselves Republicans and who profess to be pro-choice as folks who call themselves Democrats who profess to be pro-life.

wendersfan
10-05-05, 04:59 PM
I wonder how many conservatives still pay attention to what George Will says?
Many still do.

Duran
10-05-05, 05:03 PM
THEY don't really give a shit about spending, judicial activism, federalism, or anything but abortion.


From a comment on http://www.volokh.com/

It's doubly embarassing to hear this kind of talk from people who scorn the notion of the SC as a "super-legislature." Anyone who supports Miers because of her religion is acting based on results rather than on judicial philosophy, and they have no room to complain if a future President nominates judges solely to produce the outcomes he (or she) desires.

The whole thing just confirms that the Bush Administration means "decisions we don't like" when they say "judicial activism".

I would like to see someone nominated with a clear legal and constitutional philosophy. Hell, I'd rather have someone with a philosophy I oppose rather than a results-based Justice. Results-based really does turn it into a "super-legislature" with activist Justices. Justices that make decisions based on legal philosophy and interpretation without regards to their personal view of the outcome is what the position requires. It should be absolutely irrelevant whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice.

classicman2
10-05-05, 05:18 PM
Many still do.

To the conservatives that I know - George Will is 'old hat.'

wendersfan
10-05-05, 05:30 PM
To the conservatives that I know - George Will is 'old hat.':shrug:

It's likely we hang out with a different demographic, but earlier today outside my office door I witnessed a conversation between a pair of right-wingers where they referenced the same Will column in glowing terms.

classicman2
10-05-05, 05:47 PM
Those two are merely llibertarians in conservative clothing. ;)

DVD Polizei
10-05-05, 05:56 PM
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9593793/

Well, there you go. Not surprising, she's one of the Jesus Must Save The Little Spermies And Eggs freaks.

"Life Begins At Conception." - Mier

Yep... there you go


"Hecht and other confidants of Miers all pledge that if the Senate confirms her nomination to the Supreme Court, her judicial values will be guided by the law and the Constitution."

Oh yeah, I'm SURE she's going to be guided exclusively by law. She probably has a wallet-size pic of Jesus in her purse, above the dash in her car, and Jesus bookmarks for her law books.

mosquitobite
10-05-05, 07:52 PM
"Keeping the government out" would seem to be a position to me. Am I missing something?

I suppose. :shrug:

I personally feel abortion is murder (now).
I don't believe my views on the matter should be imposed on anyone else.

I DO believe though that a man should have just as much say in the issue as the woman. :shrug: It takes 2 to make it.

DVD Polizei
10-05-05, 08:04 PM
So, let's see. You're saying a man has 50% say in what to do with a life inside a mother, because he simply stuck himself inside her?

I'd like to hear some comments from the women on that equality. :)

On a similar situation, just because I vote...does not mean I have a 50% weight of what legislation is passed or how they conduct their affairs. I merely vote. That's it.

Rockmjd23
10-06-05, 12:08 AM
I'd like to hear some comments from the women on that equality. :)
I believe you just did.

mosquitobite
10-06-05, 07:11 AM
:hscratch: You mean other women?

Do you not know what my user name means? :lol:

classicman2
10-06-05, 07:15 AM
Is a graduate of SMU and SMU law school 'fit' for the Supreme Court?

That seems to be the rather shallow (IMO) argument that some folks are making.

Th0r S1mpson
10-06-05, 09:42 AM
People are just pissed that they don't have her on their Supreme Court fantasy team. People buy her "lack of qualifications" without knowing much about her. Because people on both sides had others in mind.

People have a vision for what the qualifications as a Supreme Court judge are... and some people's concept of that is not entirely accurate.

Red Dog
10-06-05, 10:22 AM
Is a graduate of SMU and SMU law school 'fit' for the Supreme Court?

That seems to be the rather shallow (IMO) argument that some folks are making.


No, but the fact that she didn't make law review at SMU has to make one wonder.

A lot of people compare her to Lewis Powell. That's not a plus if you ask me. Anyone who has read Bakke can tell you why. ;)

Red Dog
10-06-05, 10:26 AM
People are just pissed that they don't have her on their Supreme Court fantasy team. People buy her "lack of qualifications" without knowing much about her. Because people on both sides had others in mind.


Not me. Roberts certainly wasn't on my fantasy team yet I had no qualms with his qualifications, which were stellar, no matter what political lenses you are looking through.

classicman2
10-06-05, 10:28 AM
I have been listening to ? Frum, former Bush speech writer, discussing the Miers nomination. He has been one of the most critical people concerning the nomination.

The reporter stated that Carl Rove had a hand in the selection; and, that one of the principal reasons for her selection was her confirmability.

Frum responded that Roberts proved you can get an extremely well-qualified conservative confirmed by an overwhelming vote.

Leaving aside the question of whether Roberts is a 'true conservative,' the problem with Frum's piss poor analysis is that in Roberts you had one conservative replacing another conservative. This time is entirely different. You have a candidate replacing a swing vote.

Mammal
10-06-05, 10:47 AM
Well, people voted for Bush 'cause he's an "ordinary guy" you could have a beer with - so why not a Supreme Court Justice who's an "ordinary lawyer" who could handle your divorce case?

sfsdfd
10-06-05, 11:01 AM
Well, people voted for Bush 'cause he's an "ordinary guy" you could have a beer with - so why not a Supreme Court Justice who's an "ordinary lawyer" who could handle your divorce case?
Yeah, that's just what we need... our entire government run by average Joes. Pretty soon, we'll be changing the Pledge to conclude, "with TV and baseball for all!"

Here's another idea: Instead, let's pick the most brilliant, skilled, qualified candidate for each position.

- David Stein

classicman2
10-06-05, 11:09 AM
Can't we non-average joes on the court who happen to have a little bit of real world experience - something that folks in the judiciary and acadamia (sp?) may very well not have.

Red Dog
10-06-05, 11:17 AM
Can't we non-average joes on the court who happen to have a little bit of real world experience - something that folks in the judiciary and acadamia (sp?) may very well not have.


What kind of real world experience? Your real world is different than someone elses.

I mean does serving on the Texas Lottery Commission, running a Texas law firm, and being George Bush's lawyer equate to real world experience?

BTW, has anyone read some of her writings. If they are representative of her work as a whole, I have a feeling her law clerks are going to be pretty busy. Either that or you are going to see a high frequency of Miers adding her name on the Roberts opinions. :lol:

Red Dog
10-06-05, 11:27 AM
Crony cachet
By Bruce Fein
October 6, 2005

Cronyism is the signature of the Bush administration. Harriet Miers' nomination to the United States Supreme Court is the high-water mark. The Senate should reject the nomination to honor the original meaning of the Constitution. As Alexander Hamilton amplified in Federalist 76, the Senate confirmation role was intended to "prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity."

President Bush's sound track during two campaigns was Scalia-Thomas as the philosophical North Star for Supreme Court appointments. Miss Miers, in contrast, is an ink blot. On constitutional matters, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there is no there there. She has neither said nor written anything edifying about constitutional law or politics during more than three decades as a lawyer. Her nomination evokes Sen. Roman Hruska's ill-conceived defense of G. Harrold Carswell: "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"

Miss Miers has taken to an extreme Saint Paul's advice to be all things to all people. Her political loyalties have fluctuated between Democrat presidential aspirants Michael Dukakis and Al Gore to Republican hopeful Phil Gramm and President George W. Bush. Former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie conceded Miss Miers was a Democrat throughout the 1980s. Her unelaborated conversion to Republican ranks smacks more of expediency than conviction.

Miss Miers' Supreme Court credentials are suboptimal, not to make too fine a point: graduation from Southern Methodist University with a major in mathematics contemporaneously with Laura Bush; personal attorney to Mr. Bush; general counsel to Gov.-elect Bush's transition team in 1994; assistant to the president and staff secretary in 2001; deputy chief of staff in 2003; and White House counsel in 2005. Her acclaim by Sen. Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who has sneered at Justice Clarence Thomas' competence, adds cause for skepticism.

The nominee has been conspicuously silent on every controversial constitutional matter in her generation, including Watergate, the legislative veto, Roe v. Wade, presidential war powers, Iran-Contra, prayer in school; the impeachment of President Clinton; the line-item veto; the death penalty; and campaign finance restrictions. If confirmed, Miss Miers can be expected to exceed the obscurity of Garbriel Duvall, who contributed but two words to constitutional law ("I dissent" in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)), during 23 years of Supreme Court service. According to Carol E. Dinkins, a friend of Miss Miers and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, the nominee thought lawyers should avoid public stands on social issues. In other words, as private lawyers, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and defeated nominee Robert H. Bork skated over the edge of propriety in assailing the Supreme Court's social engineering decisions.

The Senate Judiciary Committee should ask Miss Miers what contribution to constitutional thinking she would make on the Supreme Court; how many court decisions she has read carefully from beginning to end; how many hours' discussion she has devoted to constitutional philosophy or history; how she would expect to enrich and influence court deliberations with her less-than-spare knowledge of constitutional law. A nominee needing years of on-the-job training is unqualified.

Miss Miers' defenders insist she is likely to vote with Justices Scalia and Thomas in decisive cases. But the law pivots not on results but on reasoning, which guides subordinate tribunals, legislatures and executive officials. The power of the court is in explanations, not in ipse dixits. The idea Miss Miers would be intellectually equipped to write for the ages is preposterous, like believing an amateur writer would surpass Shakespeare if awarded a Nobel Prize.

In any event, since 1969, every Republican Supreme Court appointee like Miss Miers without steeled and sharp philosophical convictions has embraced freestyle constitutional law celebrating penumbras and mysteries of the universe as interpretive standards: Chief Justice Warren Burger, and Associate Justices Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. Miss Miers is far more likely to follow the editorial pages of the New York Times and the academic exhortations of Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe than the instructions of Justices Scalia and Thomas or of Judge Bork.

Mediocre minds resist challenges to prevailing orthodoxies, which means Miss Miers would neither disturb nor confine the court's outlandish privacy, racial preference, church-state, death penalty, campaign finance, or enemy combatant decrees.

President Bush's nomination of Miss Miers tacitly endorses a modified "petrified forest" concept of the Supreme Court ardently articulated by Sen. Charles Schumer, New York Democrat, i.e., its philosophical balance should be frozen in perpetuity irrespective of elections or popular will unless and until Democrats overcome Republicans in the White House and Senate. In other words, a conservative should replace a conservative, a moderate should succeed a moderate and a liberal should replace a liberal. Thus, if aging Justice John Paul Stevens were to retire, President Bush can be expected to nominate a liberal of the same or similar ilk.

To save herself and the Supreme Court from caricature or derision, Miss Miers should ask that her nomination be withdrawn. That act of statesmanship and courage would win her honor in the history books far surpassing anything she could accomplish by her appointment.



Seldom wrong and right again, Bruce.

al_bundy
10-06-05, 11:28 AM
Yeah, that's just what we need... our entire government run by average Joes. Pretty soon, we'll be changing the Pledge to conclude, "with TV and baseball for all!"

Here's another idea: Instead, let's pick the most brilliant, skilled, qualified candidate for each position.

- David Stein

since half of all justices nominated in the 20th century didn't have any judicial experience and the US is still here, what is wrong with her?

Red Dog
10-06-05, 11:35 AM
since half of all justices nominated in the 20th century didn't have any judicial experience and the US is still here, what is wrong with her?


Keep in mind that there weren't nearly the number of courts (and judgeships) in the first half of the 20th century that there have been in the last 30 years. Again, though, that is not a deal-breaker. John Roberts didn't magically improve his standing by serving on the DC Circuit for a few years. He would have been fit to be nominated for the SCt prior to that. He was nuanced in every facet of constitutional law and had served as a clerk to Rehnquist.

As far as I can tell, she has little to no experience in constitutional law. She hasn't written about it. She hasn't represented a client in a constitutional law case. She hasn't decided a constitutional law case. She never clerked for an appellate judge where such constitutional issues are argued. Her scholarship on the subject is severely lacking. The SCt is not a place for someone without these basics.

al_bundy
10-06-05, 11:37 AM
neither did a lot of the justices appointed in the last century

and john marshall didn't have any judicial experience either

Mammal
10-06-05, 11:42 AM
Can't we non-average joes on the court who happen to have a little bit of real world experience - something that folks in the judiciary and acadamia (sp?) may very well not have.

Well, yeah, but being a big-firm, prominent-in-the-bar type of lawyer isn't close to the real world.

mosquitobite
10-06-05, 11:44 AM
since half of all justices nominated in the 20th century didn't have any judicial experience and the US is still here, what is wrong with her?

Can you tell me what's wrong with Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown?

What's WRONG with her is the fact that Bush and conservatives in Congress have been pansy whipped by Democrats into believing our philosophies are to remain "hidden" instead of in full view for debate. It's as if they are ashamed of being a Federalist (yes, I know Roberts cowered from that classification too).

And David, you jest in your post but on NPR the other day Nancy Pelosi stated "broadband for all". :lol:
(And before you all give me shit about listening to NPR :lol: I have a 97 Subaru with 140K miles that gets 3 channels on the radio: Top 40, Lite listening, and NPR)

Red Dog
10-06-05, 11:44 AM
neither did a lot of the justices appointed in the last century

and john marshall didn't have any judicial experience either


I never said judicial experience was a prerequisite.

classicman2
10-06-05, 12:10 PM
Can you tell me what's wrong with Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown?

Do you really want to know?

Neither one could be confirmed.

Red Dog
10-06-05, 12:13 PM
Do you really want to know?

Neither one could be confirmed.


If the Republicans weren't pu$$ies, they could be.

JasonF
10-06-05, 12:16 PM
Well, yeah, but being a big-firm, prominent-in-the-bar type of lawyer isn't close to the real world.

:sad: I'm a big firm type of lawyer. This is the suckiest fantasy land ever.

Two questions: what's so great about the real world, anyway, and what makes you think a Circuit Court of Appeals Judge is better connected to the real world?

classicman2
10-06-05, 12:16 PM
You assume one of a couple of things if you believe any one of those could be confirmed.

1. That at least 5 of the 7 Democrats would vote for cloture - and that assumes that all 55 Repubs vote for cloture. or,

2. That 3 of the 7 Republicans would vote for the nuclear (constitutional) option.

JasonF
10-06-05, 12:18 PM
Can you tell me what's wrong with Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown?

The question isn't what's wrong with Luttig or Brown or anyone else you want to name. Meirs's qualifications should be addressed on their own merit, not in comparison to whichever jduge you wish Bush had nominated instead.

Red Dog
10-06-05, 12:20 PM
#2. Plus Luttig is pretty confirmable. He is pretty much the same as Roberts except that he is a tad more abrasive, personality wise.

Tracer Bullet
10-06-05, 12:21 PM
If we want a "real-world" nominee, perhaps Justice My Cousin Vinnie?

classicman2
10-06-05, 12:32 PM
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
00


PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT






No. 98-1930







RICHMOND MEDICAL CENTER FOR WOMEN; WILLIAM G. FITZHUGH, M.D.; HILLCREST CLINIC; HERBERT C. JONES, JR., M.D.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON, DC, INCORPORATED; VIRGINIA LEAGUE FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE BLUE RIDGE,

PlaintiffS-Appellees,


versus



JAMES GILMORE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Virginia; DAVID M. HICKS, in his official capacity as Commonwealth Attorney for the City of Richmond; DONALD S. CALDWELL, in his official capacity as Commonwealth Attorney for the County of Roanoke; HOWARD GWYNN, in his official capacity as Commonwealth Attorney for


the city of Newport News; CHARLES D. GRIFFITH, JR., in his official capacity as Commonwealth Attorney for the City of Norfolk; ROBERT F. HORAN, JR., in his official capacity as Commonwealth Attorney for the County of Fairfax; JAMES L. CAMBLOS, III, in his official capacity as Commonwealth Attorney for the County of Albemarle,

Defendants-Appellants.





O R D E R






We have considered the motion to dissolve our stay pending appeal of the order of the district court which enjoined the operation of the statute involved in this case, and we have considered the response thereto. We are of opinion the motion is well taken.

It is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that our said order of September 14, 1999, staying the order of the district court pending appeal, shall be, and the same hereby is, vacated.

Judge Widener and Judge Murnaghan concur in this order without opinion. Judge Luttig concurs in this order and has appended an opinion thereto, which is attached.


/s/ H. E. Widener, Jr.


For the Court


(Opinion follows)

LUTTIG, Circuit Judge:

I understand the Supreme Court to have intended its decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), to be a decision of super-stare decisis with respect to a woman's fundamental right to choose whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy. See Casey, 505 U.S. at 844-46 ("Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), that definition of liberty is still questioned. . . . After considering the fundamental constitutional questions resolved by Roe, principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of stare decisis, we are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed."). And I believe this understanding to have been not merely confirmed, but reinforced, by the Court's recent decision in Stenberg v. Carhart 2000 WL 825889, at *4 (June 28, 2000) ("[T]his Court, in the course of a generation, has determined and then redetermined that the Constitution offers basic protection to the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992). We shall not revisit those legal principles.").

Although I so understand (and understood) the Court in Casey, I believed at the time that I voted to stay the district court's judgment pending appeal that, essentially for the reasons that were set forth by Justice Kennedy in dissent in Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court would ultimately hold that the Commonwealth's restrictions on partial-birth abortions did not constitute an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. At the very least, I believed that the Court would, given that the plaintiffs before us lodged only a facial challenge to the state's law, defer to what I regarded as the Commonwealth's reasonable interpretation of its statute as not extending to methods of abortion other than the partial-birth procedure. Based upon what I believed would be the Supreme Court's holding and likely reasoning on the constitutionality of the partial-birth ban, and the overlay of deference customarily afforded state statutes in facial challenges, I believed that the plaintiffs in the case before us lacked Article III standing to challenge the Commonwealth's statute because none of them even intended to perform the prohibited partial-birth procedure. For these reasons, I stayed the district court's original injunction as a single Circuit Judge and thereafter voted as a panel member of the court to deny the plaintiffs' motion to lift that stay.

While the district court's opinion and judgment were awaiting review by this court, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Stenberg v. Carhart. We consequently postponed further consideration of this case pending final resolution of the partial-birth issue by the Court in Stenberg.

The Supreme Court has now held unequivocally that a statute worded like the Commonwealth's does not adequately distinguish between the so-called D&X procedure and the D&E procedure, the latter of which unquestionably may not be constitutionally banned by the government in the earlier stages of pregnancy. Moreover, the Court has also now unequivocally held that any ban on partial-birth abortion must include an exception for the health of the mother in order to be constitutional. The Commonwealth's statute likewise does not include such an exception for maternal health.

Because, in my view, the Commonwealth's statute is not sustainable on either of the grounds on which the Court invalidated the Nebraska statute at issue in Stenberg v. Carhart, -- much less on both, which it must be -- I vote to lift the stay of the district court's judgment entered by this court.

In addition to lifting the stay, I would also summarily affirm the judgment of the district court, not on the reasoning of that court, but on the reasoning and opinion of the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart. It is my judgment, after carefully reviewing the arguments advanced by the Commonwealth in opposition to Planned Parenthood's motion to lift our stay, that the Supreme Court's decision has not only foreclosed these arguments, but so clearly foreclosed them as to render further argument in this court unnecessary.

As a court of law, ours is neither to devise ways in which to circumvent the opinions of the Supreme Court nor to indulge delay in the full implementation of the Court's opinions. Rather, our responsibility is to follow faithfully its opinions, because that court is, by constitutional design, vested with the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution.

In summarily affirming the unconstitutionality of the Commonwealth's partial-birth ban, I would also deny the plaintiffs' motion that I be recused from further consideration of this case. The plaintiffs have argued that they would be denied the due process of law were I to participate in the decision of the court as I do today, because I was included on today's panel under our court's local rules by virtue of having acted as a single Circuit Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8 on the Commonwealth's motion for stay of the district court's original injunction. In my view, in order to conclude that the plaintiffs' motion were well- taken, I and the court would be required to accept the view that law is but a product of the personal preferences of individual judges, and, consequently, that the law is dependent entirely upon which judge happens to be assigned to a given case. We would be required to reject the view that there actually is law independent of each of us, and that, as individual judges, we are bound, and bound equally, by that law.

I understand the argument advanced by the plaintiffs, and I even appreciate the reasons for the currency of this view. But it is not my view of law. Nor do I understand it to be the view of my colleagues on this court. And for the judiciary itself to publicly embrace such an ultimately cynical view of law and of the judicial process would represent our full succumber to the contemporary efforts by some to politicize not only the law, but the judiciary as well.

mosquitobite
10-06-05, 12:34 PM
If the Republicans weren't pu$$ies, they could be.

rotfl

I love you Red Dog! :lol:

We were not promised Frank Stallone (Why some are upset with the Miers Pick)

By Michael Edmunds

Over the past days I’ve read and heard a lot from the two camps in the Republican party concerning the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. The divide seems to be along the following lines:

The supporters of the Miers nomination cite that President Bush has appointed good judges in the past, and that they trust his judgement on this nomination. Any lack of track record is filled in by the amount of faith they have in the president. George W. Bush would not steer them wrong, so anyone he nominates should be good enough if he says they are.

The doubters, on the other hand, express disappointment that instead of nominating a proven conservative jurist to the Supreme Court, Bush has chosen to nominate a stealth candidate, with little actual evidence of her real judicial philosophy available to the public.

The real conflict comes when the pro-Miers crowd interprets the skepticism of the “trust me” justification with disloyalty to the Republican party or the president. Some have done it out of misunderstanding the reason for the opposition to the nomination, while others have done it out of sheer disbelief that it is possible to question individual actions of the president and not be either a blanket Bush-basher or traitor to the Republican party. So it is necessary to clarify the main objection of those conservatives who are unhappy with the Miers nomination.

During his first campaign in 2000, Bush promised to nominate strict constructionists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. Conservative Republicans, who for years have been told one of the main reasons we need to elect Republicans is for control of the Supreme Court, were delighted to hear this. They threw their money and their support behind then-Governor Bush, and helped him emerge the winner in both the primary and presidential campaigns.

Which leads me to the analogy of the day:

Let’s imagine we’re back in the mid 1980's.

You’re an investor looking to put some money into a lucrative big-budget action movie.

The producer, a charismatic fellow named George, promises you that if you invest in his movie, he’ll sign a big action movie star like Sylvester Stallone. Remember, in those days, Stallone and Schwarzennegger were the two big draws at the box office. If you could get either one of them, chances were good that you’d be making a nice return on your investment.

Hearing this promise, you gladly hand over your hard earned money, assured that your movie is going to be starring a certified box office winner.

But after getting all the money lined up, the producer announces to his investors that he’s signed Frank Stallone to be the lead in the movie. Not his brother Sylvester like was promised.

Now, it is possible that this Frank Stallone movie could be the highest grossing action flick ever made. It could even put E.T. to shame. Plus, Frank costs much less than Sylvester, so you’d be saving a bunch of money by going with the lesser known Stallone.

That would cause you quite a bit of uneasiness. While there is a chance that things could be as good or better with Frank than they would be with Sylvester, Sylvester is the one with the proven track record at the box office. You would be trading almost certain profit for a crap shoot.

Meanwhile, your producer friend is telling you to trust him, he knows Frank and that he’s perfectly capable of handling this role. Plus, he’s going to save you a bunch of money by hiring Frank instead of Sylvester, so making a profit will be that much easier.

This, essentially, is the position those questioning the Miers nomination find themselves in. When they were being asked for support and money, they were told they’d be getting Thomas and Scalia. When time came to nominate someone, they were presented with an unknown quantity. When they raised objections and expressed doubts about her unknown judicial philosophy, they were told that the president knows her well and we should trust his judgement. Plus, since she’s a stealth candidate, she should be easier to get through the confirmation process.

Now this unknown quantity may indeed turn out to be box office gold. Or she could end up being the judicial equivalent of ‘Ishtar’. The real problem is that we are being asked to have faith that a stealth candidate will lead us to the promised land while there are dozens of candidates with proven judicial track records who could get through the confirmation process. We are forgoing the sure thing of a jurist with a proven judicial philosophy in favor of an unknown quantity who comes with little more than a wink, a nod, and a not-so-reassuring “trust me”. And with the current dog and pony show that passes for a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, our chances of finding out anything of relevance is extremely low.

Now, getting back to the issue of the questioning the president, and the objections some have that failing to support the president in whatever he does will damage the Republican party:

The questioning of the actions of the president by his party is not only acceptable, it is healthy. We cannot forget that the last president to occupy the oval office received unconditional support from his base, and his base was rightly condemned for failing to criticize him when it was warranted. When the leaders of the Republican party say “Trust Us”, asking “Why should I?” does not help the Democrats. It helps the Republican party by ensuring that bad decisions receive scrutiny and good decisions are allowed to take their place. Without this corrective process of ideological darwinism, the Republican party will surely suffer the same drift towards entropy that the Democratic party is currently experiencing.

© 2005 OperationRino.com

Red Dog
10-06-05, 12:36 PM
Wow. I'm impressed that c-man actually researched and posted a case.

Yeah, I'm aware he has that paper trail on abortion. However, most legal commentators still called him 'Roberts....with an attitude."

LurkerDan
10-06-05, 12:40 PM
Can't we non-average joes on the court who happen to have a little bit of real world experience - something that folks in the judiciary and acadamia (sp?) may very well not have.

What is this "real world" you keep talking about? It's as if you think that they graduate from college, go straight to law school, then straight to the judiciary. Putting aside the fact that academia or the judiciary is every bit as valid "Real world" experience as any other, how do people in the judiciary get there in the first place? They had jobs, jobs that distinguished them enough to warrant nomination to the federal bench. That wasn't real world experience?

"Real world experience" is just one of those feel good catch phrases that doesn't really mean anything, IMO.

mosquitobite
10-06-05, 12:44 PM
I understand the argument advanced by the plaintiffs, and I even appreciate the reasons for the currency of this view. But it is not my view of law. Nor do I understand it to be the view of my colleagues on this court. And for the judiciary itself to publicly embrace such an ultimately cynical view of law and of the judicial process would represent our full succumber to the contemporary efforts by some to politicize not only the law, but the judiciary as well.
:banana:

This is exactly what we (conservatives) need. Someone who interprets law, not makes it.

This is why the plaintiffs wanted him off the case, because they wanted a particular OUTCOME.

Red Dog
10-06-05, 12:44 PM
The most 'real world' Justice is Thomas, and I don't see most people, including c-man, crowing about his real world experience. ;)

classicman2
10-06-05, 12:46 PM
I don't believe a judge has the experience of how laws affect people the same way that a trial lawyer who deals directly with those people have - for instance.

That's what I mean by real world experience.

I don't believe academia gives people real world experience.

LurkerDan
10-06-05, 12:50 PM
I don't believe a judge has the experience of how laws affect people the same way that a trial lawyer who deals directly with those people have - for instance.

That's what I mean by real world experience.

I don't believe academia gives people real world experience.
Fine. Although one could easily argue that in your sole "example" of real world experience it might be a bad thing, causing an appellate judge to be outcome driven as opposed to using pure legal analysis. But again, how many go straight from college to law school to academia to judgeships?

I just don't see how Miers "real world experience" somehow makes her better qualified for this position. Note I am not attacking her qualifications, I just don't see how they give her + points.

Red Dog
10-06-05, 12:50 PM
I don't believe a judge has the experience of how laws affect people the same way that a trial lawyer who deals directly with those people have - for instance.

That's what I mean by real world experience.

I don't believe academia gives people real world experience.


That's all well and good but do you want justices ruling on the constitutionality of laws based on how they affect people? If so, I guess you are a big time fan of the Warren Court, love Justice Kennedy, and will miss Madam Justice from Arizona.

classicman2
10-06-05, 12:51 PM
Wow. I'm impressed that c-man actually researched and posted a case.

Yeah, I'm aware he has that paper trail on abortion. However, most legal commentators still called him 'Roberts....with an attitude."

This nomination is a whole bunch different than was the Roberts' nomination. As I've said previously - in Roberts you had one conservative replacing another conservative.

You don't have that same situation with this nomination. The Democrats are looking for someone, at least, 'O'Connorish.'

Where some Democrats would let slide someone a little iffy on abortion with Roberts - IMO, that ain't gonna happen with this nominee.

mosquitobite
10-06-05, 12:55 PM
I knew having 2 vacancies at once was going to give the conservatives grief. :(

Red Dog
10-06-05, 12:55 PM
This nomination is a whole bunch different than was the Roberts' nomination. As I've said previously - in Roberts you had one conservative replacing another conservative.

You don't have that same situation with this nomination. The Democrats are looking for someone, at least, 'O'Connorish.'

Where some Democrats would let slide someone a little iffy on abortion with Roberts - IMO, that ain't gonna happen with this nominee.


So how come every legal expert said that Roberts would be easily confirmable when it was O'Connor's seat he was initially nominated for?

Red Dog
10-06-05, 12:56 PM
I knew having 2 vacancies at once was going to give the conservatives grief. :(


It was too much for the peabrain in the WH to deal with.

classicman2
10-06-05, 01:01 PM
So how come every legal expert said that Roberts would be easily confirmable when it was O'Connor's seat he was initially nominated for?

Where, in writing, has Roberts made his feelings known on Roe v. Wade?

Red Dog
10-06-05, 01:05 PM
Where, in writing, has Roberts made his feelings known on Roe v. Wade?


C'mon - everyone knew which way he is likely to vote on that subject. You, me, and the Senators who voted on him. It was not 'iffy.' Do you really need a paper trail to confirm it?

Besides, no matter how you slice it, Roberts is not 'O'Connorish,' which is what you said the Democrats are looking for. He is a Rehnquist clone.

mosquitobite
10-06-05, 01:14 PM
Where, in writing, has Roberts made his feelings known on Roe v. Wade?


While this is the biggest issue for the Democrats, I can tell you that the Republicans know that if we get a strict originalist it doesn't MATTER if there is a written position on that one stupid issue.

Roe is a bad law, bad decision. Conservatives are confident an originalist will come to that conclusion.

Now we are to "trust" the non-conservative POTUS when he tells us she is a strict constitionalist. But we have no proof. We have to trust a RINO President in order to come to that conclusion.

classicman2
10-06-05, 01:14 PM
In addition, the Democrats felt reasonably safe with Roberts, as I believe they do with Miers, because many of the hardcore conservative groups weren't overwhelmed with the Roberts' nomination and even more oppose the Miers nomination.

You've got probably 5 Republican Senators who wouldn't vote to confirm someone who is openly 'hostile' to Roe v. Wade.

I have doubts that someone like Luttig could be confirmed - certainly not without a long and divisive fight not only in the full senate, but also among the Republicans in the senate.

Mammal
10-06-05, 01:21 PM
:Two questions: what's so great about the real world, anyway, and what makes you think a Circuit Court of Appeals Judge is better connected to the real world?


1. The real world is never, never dull. It's a world where the victims of domestic violence want their husbands/boyfriends/babydaddies out of jail as soon as they get sober. People name their babies "Tequila," "Cash Money," "Teflon" or "Toshiba." Not that it doesn't suck on occasion.

2. The Circuit Court of Appeals is, I expect, not real...unless the Judges work late downtown.

JasonF
10-06-05, 01:27 PM
I don't believe a judge has the experience of how laws affect people the same way that a trial lawyer who deals directly with those people have - for instance.

That's what I mean by real world experience.

I don't believe academia gives people real world experience.

That argument isn't going to have much traction among judicial conservatives, who believe there is an objective and ascertainable meaning to any given piece of Constitutional or Statutory language. "Real world" is policy stuff for legislatures to consider; the judiciary's job is to stick to the language the legislature came up with.

I'm a judicial realist, mind you, so I believe the "real world" comes into it. But I think if you want to convince Red Dog or mosquitobite or whoever that real world experience is a good thing to add to the Court, you first have to convince them that a judge's experience (real world or otherwise) has an appropriate role in the interpretation of Constitutional provisions and statutes.

al_bundy
10-06-05, 01:35 PM
every judge pays some attention to current views, opinions etc when deciding a case. As society's views have changed on issues, the judiaciary has changed too.

Red Dog
10-06-05, 01:48 PM
I'm a judicial realist, mind you, so I believe the "real world" comes into it. But I think if you want to convince Red Dog or mosquitobite or whoever that real world experience is a good thing to add to the Court, you first have to convince them that a judge's experience (real world or otherwise) has an appropriate role in the interpretation of Constitutional provisions and statutes.



That's why I made the Warren Court comment. The 'real world' argument works if you are talking about a nominee who is a centrist or left of center; one who is not constrained by the text or intent of the Constitution. That's why it is a strange comment coming from c-man since I never thought him to be a major fan of the Warren Court.

Now if 'real world' is code for Senator, Congressman, or some kind of elected official, then the comment makes sense. Of course, I don't see how a politician is anymore 'real' than a judge or academic.

mosquitobite
10-06-05, 01:50 PM
every judge pays some attention to current views, opinions etc when deciding a case. As society's views have changed on issues, the judiaciary has changed too.

Some judges pay attention to the NY Times. :rolleyes: I'd wager you can't say that about Scalia and Thomas...

Red Dog
10-06-05, 01:54 PM
Interesting question posted by Prof. Zywicki on volokh. We saw the Dems with presidential aspirations shoot down Roberts seemingly to appeal to the left. Will we see that from the GOP contenders, namely Santorum and Allen, to appeal to the right, since they clearly do not like this nominee?

One thing for sure - Allen is up for re-election (here in VA) next year. If he votes against this nominee, I would strongly consider voting for him for Senate next year, even though I disagree with him on many many issues.

JasonF
10-06-05, 01:56 PM
http://cagle.com/news/HarrietMiers/images/sack.jpg

mosquitobite
10-06-05, 02:01 PM
rotfl

Love it!

classicman2
10-06-05, 02:01 PM
I don't see how a politician is anymore 'real' than a judge or academic.


The politician deals hands on with the people & with their major & petty problems. Judges don't.

LurkerDan
10-06-05, 02:05 PM
1. The real world is never, never dull. It's a world where the victims of domestic violence want their husbands/boyfriends/babydaddies out of jail as soon as they get sober. People name their babies "Tequila," "Cash Money," "Teflon" or "Toshiba." Not that it doesn't suck on occasion.
And how many nominees to the US Supreme Ct, whether judges or not, do you think have this kind of "real world" experience? Does Miers, simply because she isn't a judge? Unless the nominee came from very poor roots, or had experience as a DA or PD (and some judges have that experience), they don't get this kind of real world experience regardless of whether they were judges.

I repeat, I think "real world experience" is mostly a feel good catchphrase that has little meaning.

Red Dog
10-06-05, 02:06 PM
The politician deals hands on with the people & with their major & petty problems. Judges don't.


Yeah - and they also try to tell the people what they want to hear (appeal to 50%+1). They have a different personality in private than when in front of a camera. That is hardly real.

Judges, unless they are elected, can basically do or say what they want. Also, Judges certainly deal with all kinds of problems - major and petty.

So did I guess right - is 'real world' your code word for elected official?

For the record, I wouldn't have a problem with an elected official being nominated to the Court, as long as they have sufficient legal credentials.

classicman2
10-06-05, 02:07 PM
I repeat, I think "real world experience" is mostly a feel good catchphrase that has little meaning.

And I repeat - I don't agree with you. ;)

LurkerDan
10-06-05, 02:08 PM
The politician deals hands on with the people & with their major & petty problems. Judges don't.
Judges often see way more intimate details about people and their major problems than politicians do.

I have a hard time believing that a Senator by definition has more "real world experience" than a judge. Politics inside the beltway is often used as a synonym for lack of real world experience.

classicman2
10-06-05, 02:11 PM
Red Dog said politicians - all politicans are not beltway politicians.

Red Dog
10-06-05, 02:15 PM
Hey, c-man, what do you think of the only current Justice who once held elected office? If one reads her opinions, it looks like she is still running for office. ;)

Ranger
10-06-05, 02:35 PM
The more I think about it, I think Bush should not have selected a woman to replace O'Conner. I don't think the "delicate balance" of the court depends on the justices' gender. I probably would have selected someone like Estrada, at least that'd be a change from just another white woman to a hispanic man. It could have forced a real debate but inevtiable confirmation, I don't think Democrats really were willing to resist Roberts anyway.

LurkerDan
10-06-05, 03:38 PM
Red Dog said politicians - all politicans are not beltway politicians.
True. But many of the ones that would normally be considered US S Ct fodder are (O Connor was definitely an exception).

Pharoh
10-06-05, 03:59 PM
It was too much for the peabrain in the WH to deal with.



Yeah, I don't suppose the utter weakness in the Senate had anything to do with it.

Red Dog
10-06-05, 04:51 PM
Yeah, I don't suppose the utter weakness in the Senate had anything to do with it.


He didn't even give Senate Republicans a chance to fight on a SCt nom, so he deserves the blame IMO.

Then again, I think there is a strong possibility that he was lying about wanting to nominate a Thomas.

Duran
10-06-05, 05:35 PM
He didn't even give Senate Republicans a chance to fight on a SCt nom, so he deserves the blame IMO.

Then again, I think there is a strong possibility that he was lying about wanting to nominate a Thomas.

He doesn't want a Thomas. Thomas' views could be termed "conservative", but he's no proponent of Federal or Executive power, which seem to be a big deal to Bush.

Pharoh
10-06-05, 05:40 PM
He didn't even give Senate Republicans a chance to fight on a SCt nom, so he deserves the blame IMO.

Then again, I think there is a strong possibility that he was lying about wanting to nominate a Thomas.



Perhaps he is fully to blame. On the other hand, maybe he was being a realist, and a wise one at that.


I don't personally like the pick, don't like the fact that seemingly far better candidates were passed over. I also think it was a political mistake, most notably for the underestimation of the hard right's reaction.

However, it is my belief that the White House was certain that someonce such as Brown or Luttig would not be confirmed, that due to the situation in the Senate, particularly concerning Senator Frist, the mere threat of an unbreakable filibuster would scuttle such a nominee. That assessment may be wrong, but it is likely the one achieved by the White House. In that light, it is my belief that the President chose somebody whom he is personally conviced of how they will rule, yet who will be able to pass the nomination test. If a stealth candidate was a necessity, (I am not saying it was), than better it to be a candidate whose beliefs are known by the President. Ms. Miers may be the only person to fit that bill.

Pharoh
10-06-05, 05:48 PM
He doesn't want a Thomas. Thomas' views could be termed "conservative", but he's no proponent of Federal or Executive power, which seem to be a big deal to Bush.



That assumes the President only is concerned with the next two years or so. He would be the only President to feel such a way.

mosquitobite
10-06-05, 06:31 PM
Perhaps he is fully to blame. On the other hand, maybe he was being a realist, and a wise one at that.


I don't personally like the pick, don't like the fact that seemingly far better candidates were passed over. I also think it was a political mistake, most notably for the underestimation of the hard right's reaction.

However, it is my belief that the White House was certain that someonce such as Brown or Luttig would not be confirmed, that due to the situation in the Senate, particularly concerning Senator Frist, the mere threat of an unbreakable filibuster would scuttle such a nominee. That assessment may be wrong, but it is likely the one achieved by the White House. In that light, it is my belief that the President chose somebody whom he is personally conviced of how they will rule, yet who will be able to pass the nomination test. If a stealth candidate was a necessity, (I am not saying it was), than better it to be a candidate whose beliefs are known by the President. Ms. Miers may be the only person to fit that bill.


So it scuttles a nominee. :shrug: If he were to continue to put forth the best originalist judges and the Dems KEPT filibustering and KEPT filibustering eventually the public would get sick of it. The left would clamor that Bush need to nominate someone moderate in order to stop the fighting. The right would say it's not for the Senate MINORITY to decide who the President picks. Even people on the left such as classicman and JasonF knows it's the President's right to pick the nominee he wants. Basic US History is on the Republican's side. And also, I do believe the originalist argument would win in the court of public opinion. Maybe I'm an optimist. ;)

Supermallet
10-06-05, 06:38 PM
Not to say this of anyone here, but in the political world, it seems that most of the hardline conservatives aren't against Miers because she's a crony, but because they're not sure she's the results-oriented justice that they want.

classicman2
10-06-05, 07:44 PM
There very well might be political consequences to continued filibusters on a SC nominee.

The problem is that the Democrats don't fear George W. Bush. They once did - after 9/11, and when things went very well in Afghanistan & Iraq. He made the stupid mistake of coming up with his Social Security scheme that the public rejected completely. This helped to embolden the Democrats. Things are no longer going well for this president. Add to that, he's getting some of the blame for things he really has no control over.

During the worst days of the Clinton era, the Republicans feared him - especially their fearless leader Newt Gingrich.

BTW: mosquitobite,

Where do you get the idea that I'm on the left? I'm left-of-center on some things. I'm right-of-center on some things. That's why I'm a centrist.

bhk
10-06-05, 07:54 PM
He didn't even give Senate Republicans a chance to fight on a SCt nom, so he deserves the blame IMO.
The RINOs in the Senate have shown whose bitches they are when approx 10 nominees were unjustly filibustered for pretty much the entire first term. They showed then that they would rather be popular in DC cocktail parties and the media than do what they were elected to do.

classicman2
10-06-05, 08:02 PM
The RINOs in the Senate have shown whose bitches they are when approx 10 nominees were unjustly filibustered for pretty much the entire first term. They showed then that they would rather be popular in DC cocktail parties and the media than do what they were elected to do.

Come on!

I don't know a RINO (whatever that is) in the Senate who occupied the two power positions that decides on what procedure to follow - the Senate Majority Leader & the Senate Majority Whip. Both of these positions were occupied by conservatives.

If there is any blame - blame the president, assuming that he told the leaders not to combat the filibuster with tactics that are effective against real filibusters - blame the entire Republican Caucus. They selected the wrong Majority Leader.

bhk
10-06-05, 08:07 PM
I don't know a RINO (whatever that is) in the Senate who occupied the two power positions that decides on what procedure to follow - the Senate Majority Leader & the Senate Majority Whip. Both of these positions were occupied by conservatives.
And both have jelly spines. Hell, they shouldn't have to be told by the president to stop a filibuster by the opposition party when they are in the majority. Esp. when that minority party has changed senate rules in the past when it suited them.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0