[N8 v2.0]

Now maybe we can get someone really good in there!
:dancing:

Miers Withdraws Supreme Court Nomination
Oct 27 9:07 AM US/Eastern
By TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent


WASHINGTON - Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.

President Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House _ disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers _ and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

Miers' surprise withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting news on another front _ the possible indictment of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case.

Miers told the president she was withdrawing at 8:30 p.m. Wednesday. In her letter dated Thursday, Miers said she was concerned that the confirmation process "would create a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country."

She noted that members of the Senate had indicated their intention to seek documents about her service in the White House in order to judge whether to support her nomination to the Supreme Court. "I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy," she wrote.

"While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information will continue."

 

[Andyman_1970]

The whole deal with her and Dr. Dobson how he "knew something he wasn't suppose to know" seemed a bit weird and overly dramatic to me.

 

[DirtyDog]

Just when you thought it wasn't possible for bush to look any stupider.... along comes the Miers nomination. Maybe Shrub and N8 are long lost brothers?

 

[narlus]

it was funny in that the hard left and right were against her.

bork is next.

 

[kidwoo]

He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House _ disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers _ and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

True. It's the senators' fault she's incompetent and knows nothing about constitutional law. I mean, how dare them try to do their job in confirmation hearings.

At least J Roberts could stand up for himself.

 

[ridetoofast]

hopefull we'll get one in there that advocates

a) mandatory gun ownership like the swedes
b) strengthening of illegal immigration laws
c) overturning roe v. wade
d) and anything else that'll get the dim's panties in a wad


j/k seriously though, i just want a judge that simply interprets the law, not one who circumvents the legislative process and commits judicial activism...cough cough 9th circuit

 

[sanjuro]

True. It's the senators' fault she's incompetent and knows nothing about constitutional law. I mean, how dare them try to do their job in confirmation hearings.

At least J Roberts could stand up for himself.

I am looking for competent jurists. John Roberts, while not exactly my political bent, was extremely qualified, which was why he was picked to be Chief Justice.

Miers seemed more like an administrator or backroom strategist. I am sure she is qualified in those regards, but not as a jurist.

Really, she barely filled out the standard questionaire to the Senate panel. I remember a recap of two lengthy questions about her communications with the President gathered the same response, "No." The White House just went through one vetting process, you would think she would know what to put down.

Stuff like that is not going to get you nominated.

 

[kidwoo]

stuff.

Yeah exactly. This and michael brown in FEMA are the two glaring examples of the cronyism the democrats (and now some others) are whining about but it runs really deep with almost all of bush's appointments. It really is there and it's funny to hear scott maclellan try to deny it.

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

j/k seriously though, i just want a judge that simply interprets the law, not one who circumvents the legislative process and commits judicial activism...cough cough 9th circuit

Where did you get these talking points from? It sounds like the basic rubbish from GOP websites.

With the echochamber going full bore, too many people just spout this stuff out and have forgotten that the whole point of the judiciary is to keep an eye on the legislative branch. It prevents tyranny by the majority. Sure it LOOKS like they're legislating, but what is really going on is they're telling legislators "Uh Uh Uh, you can't do that."

The Cheese

 

[stevew]

will the next nominee be one of these

Possible new candidates for court vacancy
Associated Press

Some of the possible candidates for President Bush to choose after the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination:

— SAMUEL A. ALITO, 55: A strong conservative voice in his 15 years on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considered to be among the most liberal. He has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

— EMILIO GARZA, 58: Sits on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and was considered for a Supreme Court seat by the first President Bush. He has become best known for his views that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that abortion regulation should be decided by state legislatures.

— ALBERTO GONZALES, 50: U.S. attorney general and former White House counsel. Critics contend a memo he wrote on treatment of terrorism detainees helped lead to abuses like those seen at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Conservatives have urged Bush not to nominate him.

— EDITH HOLLAN JONES, 55: Has served on the 5th Circuit since 1985. The first President Bush considered Jones for a vacancy on the Supreme Court in 1990, but nominated David H. Souter.

— J. MICHAEL LUTTIG, 51: Worked in the Justice Department during the administration of the first President Bush and has served on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. He was a law clerk to the late Chief Justice Warren Burger from 1983-84.

— MICHAEL McCONNELL, 50: A judge on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He enjoys bipartisan support in the academic community. Based on his reading of the law, he opposed President Clinton's impeachment and the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore that made George W. Bush president.

— THEODORE B. OLSON, 64: Was solicitor general, the president's top Supreme Court lawyer. He argued the Supreme Court case that gave Bush the victory in the 2000 presidential election. His wife, Barbara, a conservative commentator, was killed when terrorists crashed a jet into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

— LARRY D. THOMPSON, 59: Was deputy attorney general during Bush's first term, making Thompson the federal government's highest-ranking black law enforcement official. Thompson is a longtime friend of Clarence Thomas who sat next to Thomas more than a decade ago during contentious Senate hearings on Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court.

— J. HARVIE WILKINSON III, 60: Also on the 4th Circuit. He has been consistently conservative in his rulings since being put on the court by Reagan in 1984. Wilkinson wrote the majority 4th Circuit opinion in 1996 upholding the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that barred gays serving in the military from revealing their sexual orientation.

— PRISCILLA OWEN, 50: Owen was confirmed in May for a seat on the 5th Circuit after a drawn-out Senate battle. Democrats argued that Owen let her political beliefs to color her rulings. They were particularly critical of her decisions in abortion cases involving teenagers.

— MIGUEL ESTRADA, 44: President Bush nominated Estrada, a conservative Hispanic lawyer, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit during his first term, but the nomination was thwarted by Senate Democrats who said Estrada lacked the judicial experience to serve and didn't make clear his views on abortion.

— EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, 57: On the 5th Circuit since 2001, Clement is known as a no-nonsense judge with a reputation for being tough on crime and meting out stiff sentences. Her 99-0 Senate confirmation vote to the circuit court in November 2001 suggests she has broad appeal. She was touted as a top possibility for the vacancy to which Roberts was nominated.

— JANICE ROGERS BROWN, 56: Newly confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after a bitter Senate battle and filibuster, Brown is an outspoken black Christian conservative who supports limits on abortion rights and corporate liability.

— ALICE BATCHELDER, 61: A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Batchelder has been a reliable conservative vote on abortion, affirmative action and gun control. Bush's father appointed the former high school English teacher to the court with jurisdiction over Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

— KAREN WILLIAMS, 54: A former trial lawyer, Williams is known as one of the most conservative judges on the nation's most conservative federal appeals court, the Richmond-based 4th Circuit. In 1999, Williams wrote the 4th Circuit opinion that would have paved the way for overturning the landmark 1966 decision in Miranda that outlines the rights read to criminal suspects. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to let it stand.

— MAURA CORRIGAN, 57: The Michigan Supreme Court justice is a walking billboard for the conservative mantra of judicial restraint — the notion that judges should stick to interpreting the law and not making it. Her resume includes a number of firsts, among them: first woman to serve as chief assistant U.S. attorney in Detroit, first woman to serve as chief judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals.

— MAUREEN MAHONEY, 50: Often described as the female version of Chief Justice John Roberts, Mahoney, a lawyer in private practice, clerked for the late Justice William Rehnquist, served as deputy solicitor general under Kenneth Starr and has argued cases before the Supreme Court. Mahoney might upset conservatives with one of her major court wins, the landmark University of Michigan Law School case defending affirmative action.

 

[ohio]

Where did you get these talking points from? It sounds like the basic rubbish from GOP websites.

With the echochamber going full bore, too many people just spout this stuff out and have forgotten that the whole point of the judiciary is to keep an eye on the legislative branch. It prevents tyranny by the majority. Sure it LOOKS like they're legislating, but what is really going on is they're telling legislators "Uh Uh Uh, you can't do that."

The Cheese

An activist judge is any judge that has views that disagree with mine, or interprets the law differently than me. When their interpretation agrees with my preference, they're no longer activists, even if it has nothing at all to do with the original intent of the law.

 

[ohio]

Miers' surprise withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting news on another front _ the possible indictment of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case.

Democrats take note: if you're going to have a political disaster, at least use it to cover up an even bigger political disaster.

Damn, they know how to play the game.

 

[ohio]

— MICHAEL McCONNELL, 50: A judge on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He enjoys bipartisan support in the academic community. Based on his reading of the law, he opposed President Clinton's impeachment and the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore that made George W. Bush president.

— THEODORE B. OLSON, 64: Was solicitor general, the president's top Supreme Court lawyer. He argued the Supreme Court case that gave Bush the victory in the 2000 presidential election. His wife, Barbara, a conservative commentator, was killed when terrorists crashed a jet into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

Hmmmm... which of these two do you think is more likely to get the nomination? The one with bipartisan support, or the one that got W elected?

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

An activist judge is any judge that has views that disagree with mine, or interprets the law differently than me. When their interpretation agrees with my preference, they're no longer activists, even if it has nothing at all to do with the original intent of the law.

Such as?

The Cheese

 

[stevew]

Hmmmm... which of these two do you think is more likely to get the nomination? The one with bipartisan support, or the one that got W elected?

Neither.

Another woman.

 

[Transcend]

The funny part is that judicial activism and interpreting the law are the same damn thing. Times change, and no matter what they say, these judges are always interpreting the law with a certain amount of personal and situational bias.

Therefore every single decision is a case of judicial activism.

I studied under 2 of north America's greatest experts on Judicial Activism, they had differing viewpoints on the details, but the conclusions were basically the same.

 

[ohio]

Such as?

The Cheese

I was being sarcastic. As Transcend pointed out, "Judicial Activism" is a meaningless term that people like to throw out anytime they disagree with a decision, whether it be Roe vs. Wade, or "upholding" the 2nd amendment.

Without "judicial activism" oral sex would still be illegal in most of this country, and segregation would still be accepted.

 

[kidwoo]

Without "judicial activism" oral sex would still be illegal in most of this country, and segregation would still be accepted.

As a one time georgia resident, I have no idea what you're talking about. These tenets are still in full force yo. I don't care how they do it in kalliforny..........

 

[Reactor]

j/k seriously though, i just want a judge that simply interprets the law, not one who circumvents the legislative process and commits judicial activism...cough cough 9th circuit

Interesting. People cite the Ninth Circuit as the most overturned circuit by the Supreme court. Of course the Ninth circuit is also the biggest circuit by a factor of two, which is why the senate judiciary committee was holding hearings, yet again on breaking it into two circuits. The Ninth circuit is more conservative than the majority of it's citizens.

If you're worried about judicial activism, how about a President who recess appoints a state judge to the court of appeals after he defies a court order and was removed from office by his own state Judicial Ethics committee?

 

[Reactor]

The funny part is that judicial activism and interpreting the law are the same damn thing. Times change, and no matter what they say, these judges are always interpreting the law with a certain amount of personal and situational bias.

Therefore every single decision is a case of judicial activism.

Yes, Brown vs. Board of education was judicial activism. At the time many people were disgusted by the "activist judges". Now school segregation is unthinkable, and any other decision would look wrong. On the other hand the supreme court let slavery stand in the Dred Scott case, bowing to the pressure placed on them. It's a decision almost everyone now accepts as wrong.

Federal Judges are appointed for life in an effort to remove them from the "passions and politics" of the moment. Without that protection it would be a great deal harder to stand up and make an unpopular decision.

 

[dante]

will the next nominee be one of these

Possible new candidates for court vacancy

I can hear the jack-boots now...