NewBeetle.org Forums banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,908 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So - what do we all think about this? I know the Dems are not pleased...from what I hear - and now this article that says that the Conservatives aren't pleased either...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051003/pl_nm/bush_court_miers_dc

Bush pick for high court outrages conservatives

By Steve Holland 2 hours, 43 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush on Monday nominated White House insider Harriet Miers for a Supreme Court vacancy, triggering outrage from conservatives who questioned whether she would uphold their political views.

Bush chose Miers, a lawyer but not a judge whose opinions on key issues likely to come before the high court are largely unknown, to replace the retiring
Sandra Day O'Connor.

Conservatives who formed the bedrock foundation of Bush's re-election last November immediately protested the nomination as a betrayal of his campaign promise to pick conservative judges, pointing to her past campaign donations to Democrats.

Miers, 60, a longtime ally of Bush's going back to his days as Texas governor and currently White House counsel, would be the third woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court if confirmed by the U.S. Senate. O'Connor was the first and
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been there since 1993.

"I believe that senators of both parties will find that Harriet Miers' talent, experience and judicial philosophy make her a superb choice to safeguard the constitutional liberties and equality of all Americans," Bush said in a hastily arranged Oval Office ceremony with Miers.

O'Connor, a moderate conservative, was the key swing vote on a number of 5-4 decisions on the closely divided Supreme Court. Democrats said much was unknown about Miers and that she would undergo intense scrutiny by the Senate.

The White House noted some Democrats had urged Bush to consider the Dallas-born Miers but would give no names. One of those, however, was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

"I like Harriet Miers," said Reid, who had voted against John Roberts as U.S. chief justice in Roberts' confirmation vote last week. "In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."

But some conservatives expressed concern that Bush had missed a historic opportunity to shift the balance of the court in a clear way by picking someone in the same mold as conservative justices
Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas.

"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," said William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard magazine.

Manny Miranda, head of a conservative coalition called The Third Branch Conference, said Miers was "the most unqualified choice" for the high court since Lyndon Johnson tried to make Abe Fortas chief justice in 1968.

"I was hoping that the president would keep his campaign promise. He said he would name someone like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. We thought he meant someone with a clear judicial record on particular issues," Miranda said.

Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record) urged conservatives not to jump to conclusions and not to prejudge her.

Records show Miers has given money over the years to both Republicans and Democrats, including $1,000 to Democrat
Al Gore's presidential campaign in 1988.

In 1987 she gave $1,000 to former Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen. Bentsen was the Democratic vice presidential nominee who ran against Bush's father in 1988.

In more recent years, Miers has regularly contributed to Republicans such as Bush.

MAINSTREAM NOMINEE?

Democrats were largely measured in their reaction.

New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) said Democrats would push for documents on her and would pressure her to answer questions in order to get a sense of her judicial philosophy. "There's hope that Harriet Miers is a mainstream nominee," he said.

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Miers has been a Bush loyalist and that "it is important to know whether she would enter this key post with the judicial independence necessary when the Supreme Court considers issues of interest to this administration."

Democrats were frustrated when the conservative Roberts, during his confirmation hearings, refused to comment on cases and issues that he might have to rule on.

It was the second time Bush filled a key government position with a person involved in the search process. In 2000
Dick Cheney had led Bush's search for a vice presidential candidate and ended up with the job. Miers had been on the search committee to find a replacement for O'Connor.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush met with her four times, on September 21, 28 and 29 and on Sunday night, when he offered her the job over dinner in the White House residence.

She was among six women in a group of 12 to 15 candidates considered for the position, said McClellan.

Bush credited Miers with breaking down barriers to women in the Texas legal profession, becoming the first woman to head her Dallas law firm, the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association and the first woman elected president of the state bar of Texas.

He called on the Senate to conduct her confirmation hearings with "the same respect and civility" granted Roberts, who was in place on Monday for the opening of the Supreme Court's new term.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said he hoped to Senate would vote on her by the Thanksgiving holiday November 24.

Bush said Miers would not legislate from the bench and would strictly interpret the Constitution, his code language for a conservative philosophy.

Miers said if confirmed she would work to help ensure the courts "meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution."

(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro, Tabassum Zakaria and Adam Entous)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,908 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I haven't done much research either...but what bothers me is -
She's never been a judge, she's a corporate lawyer - so I'm not sure how that experience relates to her being one of the most powerful judges in the world.

Also - hasn't Bush learned from his experience with Brownie that if you appoint someone to a position without the proper background it might not be the best idea?:confused:
 

·
I bleed Burnt Orange!
Joined
·
687 Posts
As far as anyone, left or right, has been able to determine, her only qualification to be a Supreme Court justice, is being a fawning sycophant:
Harriet worships the president and has called him the smartest man she’s known. She’s a pretty good lawyer…. This president can be bamboozled by anyone he feels close to. If a person fawns on him enough, is loyal, works 25 hours a day and says you’re the smartest man I ever met, all of a sudden you’re right for the Supreme Court."
more here
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,908 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
dgoldbe2 said:
As far as anyone, left or right, has been able to determine, her only qualification to be a Supreme Court justice, is being a fawning sycophant:


more here

Are you suggesting that our president would be a part of cronyism?

Just because she got job after job of being a supporter of his couldn't possibly mean that.

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.
 

·
I bleed Burnt Orange!
Joined
·
687 Posts

·
I bleed Burnt Orange!
Joined
·
687 Posts
Here is something interesting via the American Spectator:

Just spoke with a staffer for a conservative member of the Judiciary Committee whose boss is extremely unhappy about the nomination of Harriet Miers.

"We heard her name. We made it clear that she was unacceptable as a nominee on the basis of qualifications and her views, which we simply don't know anything about," says the staffer. "We worked with her on policy issues, though, before she was elevated to White House counsel and let's just say we were underwhelmed."

There is now talk of among some conservatives about a filibuster of the Miers nomination. Never mind the Al Gore donations or the money that was floated to the DNC when Miers was a managing partner in a law firm, those can be explained away as "good for the business of the firm."

Unfortunately, given the level of support Miers appears to be generating among Democrats, such a move appears impossible, though admirable.

According to several White House sources, few inside the building took the possibility of a Miers nomination seriously. Now that it's a reality, they are stunned. "We passed up Gonzales for this?" was one conservative staffer's reaction. "I don't know much about Gonzales, but I think I know enough that he's more of a conservative than Harriet is."

Conservatives staffers inside the White House were pushing a number of names early last week, but said they felt frustrated by lack of traction on any of them. "It became clear on Wednesday that he had a nominee in place and he was just waiting on timing," says another White House staffer.

According to this staffer the fact that it was Miers was one reason the President chose not to put the name out last Friday as some had hoped. "Between Frist's problems and DeLay's problems, we were concerned that the Miers nomination would have so many conservatives pissed at us that it would just be awful. I can't tell you how unhappy some of us insider here are right now. We go from the high of John Roberts to this."
Interesting, that Republican Senators are considering using the Filibuster against a Judicial Nominee.
 

·
I bleed Burnt Orange!
Joined
·
687 Posts
Now this is rich



Caption:

Harriet Miers, at the time staff secretary, is seen on Aug. 6, 2001, briefing President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.



6 August 2001? Gee, what happened on that day, that Ms. Miers was just a Staff Secretary briefing President Bush?

What was that memo he was pretending to be reading? It is right on the tip of my toungue. He was told it wasn't important. A historical document, I belive was the terminology used.


Oh, yeah, I remember now:


Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US​





source: MSNBC.com
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,908 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
:rotfl: :rotfl: Umm..I guess this is the more appropriate smilie...:eek:hnoes: :eek:hnoes:

I am truely hoping the Republicans fillerbust this one as they are reporting they might.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
PhoenixRising said:
Bingo. And that is what bothers me the most. $$ will be her guiding light.

What did Shakespeare say? 'First thing we do-kill all the lawyers'

(did I get that right?)
Yes, he did say that.
Now, as far as money being her guiding light, um....... which side (left or right) was guided by money when the ruling for the New London case came down?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,908 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
73standard said:
Yes, he did say that.
Now, as far as money being her guiding light, um....... which side (left or right) was guided by money when the ruling for the New London case came down?
Enlighten me - I don't know of such a case..at least by its name.:confused:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,908 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0706-22.htm

Well - your leaders on the right have been doing that for some time...good try.

Bush used eminent domain to take the land from what is now The Stadium in Arlington - which is where the Texas Rangers play. I believe the story was that he still had to pay the owners, but at much less rate than he would have if he had paid the going rate for the land...basically raped the owner with the E.D.


Oh, thanks for the link, BTW - I like seeing those.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,397 Posts
73standard said:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.eminent.domain/
All of those that lean to left said that government can come in and take your land for PRIVATE use. Those on the right said nope.
Not quite true.

Those who voted for it:

  1. John Paul Stevens - Liberal
  2. Anthony Kennedy - Conservative
  3. David Souter - Moderate
  4. Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Liberal, but often votes conservative
  5. Stephen Breyer - Moderate
Those who voted against it:

  1. Sandra Day O'Conner - Conservative
  2. William Rehnquist - Conservative
  3. Antonin Scalia - Conservative
  4. Clarence Thomas - Conservative
So some conservatives, and even some moderates who often vote conservative, voted for this.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
marvins_dad said:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0706-22.htm

Well - your leaders on the right have been doing that for some time...good try.

Bush used eminent domain to take the land from what is now The Stadium in Arlington - which is where the Texas Rangers play. I believe the story was that he still had to pay the owners, but at much less rate than he would have if he had paid the going rate for the land...basically raped the owner with the E.D.


Oh, thanks for the link, BTW - I like seeing those.
I approve of that no more than I do the SCOTUs rulling.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top