Quantcast

Harriet Miers picked to replace O'Conner

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9566882/

President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for a pick that could reshape the nation’s judiciary for years to come.
Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.

Without a judicial record, it's difficult to know whether Miers, 60, would dramatically move the court to the right. She would fill the shoes of O'Connor, a swing voter on the court for years who has cast deciding votes on some affirmative action, abortion and death penalty cases.
Its a pretty clever move to pick someone that doesn't have a judicial record. It is unlikely that she will answer a huge number of questions because of the whole conflict of interest issue. Like I said earlier (and everyone else as said) this pick is so very very key becaue of O'Conner's record.

And its not unheard of for nominees to have no judicial experience.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9536142/

Manuel isn't happy.

Only minutes after Bush appeared at the White House Monday to announce the nomination, Manuel Miranda, a conservative strategist and former aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist issued a scathing statement: "The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas, who had been the president's lawyer. The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it."

While cautioning that "the president deserves the benefit of a doubt," Miranda added, "Something has been left unachieved by the Miers nomination. A Republican president has yet to erase the stigma of the (1987) Robert Bork hearings and the David Souter nomination. The nomination of Harriet Miers has not rid us of the repugnant situation that a jurist with a clear and distinguished record will not be nominated for higher service. The nomination did not rid us of the apprehension of stealth nominees."
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
36,651
3,475
Sleazattle
This will be interesting. Doesn't seem to be enough information to form an opinion on yet, was that the whole point??
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
27,314
2,124
DRB said:
I think that was the ultimate goal. GWB is bound to know her beliefs on the hot button issues.
especially since she has worked as his "secretary assistant" in the past
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,640
4
SF, CA
H8R said:
Monica's official position was "Prone, Cigar Ready".
I thikn you're confusing "official" with "preferred." Officially I think she was "assistant grip."
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
22,451
2,127
In my pants
N8 said:
Yeah, I heard that this morning on the radio.

I was wondering where you got the "stuck on stupid" thing. It's been a little over a week since I've listened to the fat man but I should have known you are incapable of originality. I heard it about 6 times in an hour and a half.....plus the advertisement for the bumper sticker. Even here you can't resist quoting someone else when you get a request for your own thoughts.

Didn't you like how rush wanted to be upset that bush was in his mind 'pandering' to the democrats by picking someone who's not an obvious conservative nut, but just couldn't bring himself to outright question his husband's judgement? I did.

I love how many times he says "I'm with the president on this one". As if he weighed all the facts and came to his own conclusion on this particular issue.

What do you think?

Do you think?
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,016
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
C'mon N8. At least one opinion.

There are a couple ways to look at this. Only one of which I understand.

a) If Bush really knows the woman well the motivation could be that he is sure that she will uphold a level of constructionism comensurate with his views and in turn that which he promised to the electorate during his campaign.

b) Her lack of experience as a justice gives her the ultimate freedom to use the Ginsburg technique during her questioning. Roberts did a pretty good job of it as well.

She does have faaaaaaaaaaaar more experience as a practicing attorney than anyone else currently on the Supreme Court. I have no idea if that is good or bad.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
You know what really strikes me about the conservative reaction to Miers nomination is how they are questioning her abilities. But exactly what abilities do you need to be appropriate for conservatives? It seems to me with their desire for strict constructionist view of the Consititution all you need is that someone that can read the Constitution and a willingness to only rule within the confines of that reading. In reality anyone that can read could do that. No need for interpretation or any thoughts or even experience.

Or could it be the so called constructionists aren't really constructionists but just folks looking for activist judges to call their own.

I heard Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary chair, trying to deflect some of the criticism. But then turning around and asking about what assurances the White House might have given conservatives about how she would vote on abortion. Given his views, I believe that Specter smells a rat or maybe a trip to the briar patch.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,640
4
SF, CA
Or the conservatives are putting on a big dog and pony show, and hoping the democrats will give her a pass because democrats think anything that makes the far right unhappy must be a good thing...

*dons tinfoil hat*
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
ohio said:
Or the conservatives are putting on a big dog and pony show, and hoping the democrats will give her a pass because democrats think anything that makes the far right unhappy must be a good thing...

*dons tinfoil hat*
To be completely honest, I believe that some aspect of this may very well be true. On Meet the Press, Buchanan is bashing away at her but Richard Land is saying to trust the President. Then Russert asked specifically about the abortion issue and Land said I have trust that the president is appointing a nominee that will do the right thing.

Or James Dobson, Focus on the Family chief , saying that he has private assurances from the White House regarding her position on abortion. That's got Specter and Leahy worried enough that they are considering having him testify.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,016
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
DRB said:
Or James Dobson, Focus on the Family chief , saying that he has private assurances from the White House regarding her position on abortion. That's got Specter and Leahy worried enough that they are considering having him testify.
That is a huuuuuge can of worms that I sincerely hope gets opened. If those morons are so short sighted as to demand access to the content of conversations with non-administrative advisors or friends they will regret opening that door.
Because if they do, it opens the door to demanding the content of advisement to the left from crackpots like NARAL, PFAW, PFJ, AAUW etc who have been leading the dim's around by the shorthairs.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Damn True said:
That is a huuuuuge can of worms that I sincerely hope gets opened. If those morons are so short sighted as to demand access to the content of conversations with non-administrative advisors or friends they will regret opening that door.
Because if they do, it opens the door to demanding the content of advisement to the left from crackpots like NARAL, PFAW, PFJ, AAUW etc who have been leading the dim's around by the shorthairs.
I do to because then it would allow this whole notion of executive privilage to be tossed right the hell out the window and we could finally find out what Cheney and the oil companies were talking about. And we could find out why Rove, et al, are tossing the names of confidential CIA agents around to the press.

Yep that knife cuts both ways and I have a feeling who is going to get hurt more.