She's never been a judge (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/scotus.miers/index.html). :sly
More unqualified people getting positions in the government under Bush? I don't believe it.
Not as unusual as you would think. In fact, one that many consider to be one of the most important justices in the Court's history, Earl Warren, was never a judge before being selected Chief Justice. He was a district attorney, California Attorney General, and governor, but never a judge.
Wikipedia- Earl Warren (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Earl+Warren)
Ahaha. More idiocy from Bush.
This pick is indefensible.
Yet apparently not.
:puke
Apparently, many Democrats like the pick because she's a lot more moderate than anyone they expected from Bush.
We'll see.
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 03, 2005, 01:18:53 PM
Apparently, many Democrats like the pick because she's a lot more moderate than anyone they expected from Bush.
We'll see.
Sweet. Idiocy followed by idiocy.
Quinby Cronie: 'Uh, election in November, election in November.'
Quinby: 'What?! Again? This stupid country.'
Why nominate an old hag that will probably be dead within 10 years?? She looks like death already. Bush is gay.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/dmkdjb/bushfinger.jpg)
I think we're being too hard on Bush.
He hires unqualified morons all the time and nothing bad ever happens.
Stop being such alarmists and drink the Kool Aid, already.
george bush needs to run the ball more
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on October 03, 2005, 03:40:13 PM
I think we're being too hard on Bush.
He hires unqualified morons all the time and nothing bad ever happens.
Stop being such alarmists and drink the Kool Aid, already.
Who has he hired that is an unqualified moron? Besides Brown. That was a mistake.
Quote from: stillupfront on October 03, 2005, 10:05:22 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on October 03, 2005, 03:40:13 PM
I think we're being too hard on Bush.
He hires unqualified morons all the time and nothing bad ever happens.
Stop being such alarmists and drink the Kool Aid, already.
Who has he hired that is an unqualified moron? Besides Brown. That was a mistake.
easier question. who wasnt?
I had typed a response to Romey's earlier comment, but my computer froze and I lost it. Here goes attempt #2.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on October 03, 2005, 01:18:03 PM
Ahaha. More idiocy from Bush.
This pick is indefensible.
Yet apparently not.
:puke
I'm not sure if this was intended to me or not, but I'll respond anyway.
I don't intend to "defend" Bush's pick in any way. I do not know Ms. Miers' qualifications, which would put me squarely with 95%+ of American citizens, and I cannot pretend to speak to them.
I merely offered some historical perspective (I am a history teacher, after all ;D) to show that Bush is not the first to put an apparent judicial neophyte in the Supreme Court. Earl Warren is considered perhaps the greatest justice of the 20th Century, and he was never a judge before becoming not just a justice, but a Chief Justice.
In reading the articles on Bush's selection, I can speculate that Miers is an attempt to walk a narrow path between trying to achieve a mythical "consensus" while still trying to get someone that believes much the same way as Mr. Bush on the court. The danger with selecting someone with no judicial track record is that it may be impossible to foretell how she will actually vote once she secures a seat on the bench. Warren was a selection of Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, who believed that Warren would be a moderately conservative voice on the Court. Warren instead became well known as an activist (some say Liberal) Justice that led decisions that ended segregation (Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka) and strengthened Fifth Amendment Rights (Miranda vs. Arizona- for those that don't know, this is why the police have to advise you of your rights when you are arrested). Many conservatives felt betrayed by Warren (in the South a popular bumper sticker read "Impeach Warren"), and even Eisenhower, who moved much more slowly along the path blazed by Warren, came to regret the choice.
Again, historical perspective puts Warren in a much more positive light than in the 1950s and 1960s. Rather than a "liberal" or activist, he is seen as one who saw and did what was right to place Constitutional protection over all Americans. But he also was not what he was thought to be when chosen as the Chief Justice (and I believe- though I cannot right now confirm- that the appointment may have been a political promise by Eisenhower for Warren's support in the election of 1952 in bringing California to Eisenhower).
Miers could end up blowing up for Bush and the conservatives in the same way. Already the hardline pro-lifers are "in doubt" about the selection. More interesting to me is that she was the pick suggested by some of the Democratic Senators- especially Reid. This selection, to me, is more about making the confirmation process as peaceful and quiet as possible. It well could be that Bush doesn't have the force right now to get a stronger ideological ally in the seat, and cannot afford a protracted battle with the Democrats in the Senate. Miers could be a "safe" pick, one that will glide through the Senate with minimal friction. However, it is also a gamble- will Miers, who has never been in a judicial seat, vote how Bush would expect her to: perhaps a bit of a swing vote on some issues, but generally a moderate conservative voice; or will she stun Bush and the U.S. by, like Warren, voting largely with the more liberal justices?
Other justices, even on the current Supreme Court, have surprised the presidents that appointed them:
- Anthony Kennedy (Reagan) has been a swing vote, but more consistently liberal.
- David Souter (Bush, Sr.) had glided towards the liberal wing more and more as time goes on, and even voted against the majority that decided the election of 2000 in favor of Bush, Jr.
- Even O'Connor (Reagan) has been more centrist than originally thought. She's been largely a swing voter, keeping the Court in balance.
- John Paul Stevens (Ford) has just been a contrary cuss.
- While Democratic appointees have been somewhat more predictable (if fewer in number), Stephen Breyer has been a swing vote on some issues and perhaps a tad less liberal than anticipated.
The other thing I find interesting is that George W. Bush could conceivably make several more nominations for the Court.
- John Paul Stevens is 85 years old.
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 72 and has already been treated for colon cancer.
- Antonin Scalia is 69 (I believe he's been treated for cancer as well, but do not have confirmation).
- Anthony Kennedy is 69
- Stephen Breyer is 67
- David Souter is 66
As of right now, Bush still has a little less than 3½ years in office. It's a good chance that he'll name at least 1, and perhaps 2 or even 3 (probably not a good chance of this many), of those Justice's replacements. President Bush could have a lingering effect on this nation's judicial direction for at least the next two or three decades- more so than any Presidents in my recent memory. Richard Nixon named four in his 5+ years as President. Eisenhower named five justices in his eight years. Franklin Roosevelt named nine justices during his 12+ years in office, and almost earned the distinction of being just the second sitting president to have named the entire Supreme Court (one of his nominees replaced and earlier Roosevelt justice)- of course Washington was the first.
On a side note: Roosevelt also proposed through a congressional ally the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, also known as the Court-Packing Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-packing_Bill). This bill would have allowed a President to name a new Justice to the Supreme Court when a sitting Justice turned 70. The bill was an attempt to circumvent Supreme Court justices that opposed FDR's New Deal laws. Though the bill died in Congress, the message got through: Owen Josephus Roberts, who had before consistently voted against New Deal laws, suddenly began voting in favor of them, switching the majority to FDRs side.
Imagine if Bush tried that... :paranoid
FDR paved the way for this country to be forever in debt and the people in it to be moochers extraordinaire.
i heard she was his personal lawyer for some time. go figure :boo
Great post Geo.
She's a crony pure and simple, and if I had a vote I'd reject her on those grounds. True, White House cronies have been appointed to posts including the Supreme Court plenty of times in the past (see RFK for a pure cronyism -- and nepotism -- post to AG), but that doesn't make it right. She seems to have zero background in constitutional law, and with all the brilliant legal minds in this country (including conservative ones), it seems Bush picked her out of either personal loyalty to her, or her expected personal loyalty to him. I don't want the judicial branch in bed with the executive branch it is supposed to limit the power of. I agree that one shouldn't have to be a judge first, but if not, one should still be engaged in the constitutional debate, whether it be through being a leading law professor, law journal editor, or a lawyer who has argued many cases before the Supreme Court.
It seems like she is against the Roe decision, and so am I, although my reasons are legal and her reasons seem religious. That being said, the goal of the process shouldn't be sneaking in pro-lifers, qualifications be damned. I wouldn't want a pro-life janitor appointed to the court. There need to be some basic qualifications met, and on those grounds Miers also falls short. Like with the Schiavo case, I expect there to be a little war on the right between the religious right who think abortion means everything, and white-collar northeastern conservatives more interested in things like limiting the scope of the commerce clause.
(http://www.haakonmaxwell.com/images/mierslookalike.jpg)
:evil :boo
Just heard breaking news, Harriet Miers has withdrawn her name as nominee!
Good.
I agree!
QuoteBREAKING NEWS
President Bush "reluctantly" accepts Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's request to withdraw her nomination.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on October 27, 2005, 09:01:00 AM
QuoteBREAKING NEWS
President Bush "reluctantly" accepts Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's request to withdraw her nomination.
Really?
Here's a link. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051027/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_withdraws)
Defeat in the White House, with more to come: indictments possible today for Rove and Cheney's Chief advisor Libby, for outing a CIA secret agent (Valerie Plame).
I hope Bush is having a horrible day. I hope he feels frustrated and angry. Little bitch.
And Bush has accepted. First smart thing that this administration has done in a very long time.
Now he gets to put forward the one he really wanted. Some candidate who the whacko right wing will love and the no-backbone Democrats will hate, but prove unable to defeat.
These early stages of Nazi America are so exciting!!
This is a nice smokescreen to the bigger issue of the day, though. I'll give Miers and Bush their due on this count: they know how to play the media.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on October 27, 2005, 09:08:36 AM
Quote from: PhillyGirl on October 27, 2005, 09:01:00 AM
QuoteBREAKING NEWS
President Bush "reluctantly" accepts Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's request to withdraw her nomination.
Really?
I knew you posted it, I posted that quote for the Bush "reluctantly" accepts part.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on October 27, 2005, 09:36:13 AM
Quote from: phillymic2000 on October 27, 2005, 09:08:36 AM
Quote from: PhillyGirl on October 27, 2005, 09:01:00 AM
QuoteBREAKING NEWS
President Bush "reluctantly" accepts Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's request to withdraw her nomination.
Really?
I knew you posted it, I posted that quote for the Bush "reluctantly" accepts part.
just having some fun.
I'm glad she's gone.
kinda funny that the right and left are happy. kodak moment.
I literally spit coffee out of my mouth when I read the word "reluctantly."
:-D
Either he's flat-out the dumbest son of a bitch who's ever occupied the executive mansion, or he's the coldest, most calculating slice of evil I've ever seen.
He's the former, his handlers are the latter. They all dine with Satan.
All the hype this week and this is it?
QuoteCheney Adviser Indicted in CIA Leak Case
AP - 3 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Vice presidential adviser I. Lewis "Scooter' Libby Jr. was indicted Friday on charges of obstruction of justice, making a false statement and perjury in the CIA leak case.
What, you were expecting a REAL indictment? They're just throwing Scooter under the bus, he'll get fined and probation. Anything longer than that, and W will pardon him.
Hell, there's still probably bits of Brown on the undercarriage of that bus.....
Quote from: MadMarchHare on October 28, 2005, 01:12:54 PM
What, you were expecting a REAL indictment? They're just throwing Scooter under the bus, he'll get fined and probation. Anything longer than that, and W will pardon him.
Hell, there's still probably bits of Brown on the undercarriage of that bus.....
I just thought it was funny that this is all I heard all week, "expecting indictments any minute" " indictments coming anytime" and all they got was "scooter". Just seems anti-climatic to me, and Peter fitzgerald is a tough SOB, I thought if there was dirt to be found on some of the big boys he would find it.
And forced to suppress it. You really think the Warren Commission didn't know who killed Kennedy?
Forced to supress it? Come on, the story is weak to begin with. She was not a "secret agent" for over 5 years, thats the law correct? not saying leaking the name was right, or there was not something else done that was wrong. I can't see fitzgerald being forced to be quite these days, with how closely this administration is watched.
Making excuses for outing an agent is lame. It doesn't matter if it was 5 years ago because anyone who has been in contact with her in another country is at risk as well as potential current agents. Not to mention that it is down right petty and complete horse shtein to out a top secret agent who has dedicated their lives to serve their country over some petty disagreement with her husband. Since when are we not alowed to disagree anymore anyway?
I'm of the mind that the reporters who printed it should be in some trouble too. Yeah you have a duty as a journalist to report the truth, but there was no real story in telling everyone who was an agent. I still can't figure out how it was a smere in the first place. So they garenteed that he will never get another diplomatic post? WTF!
Petty crap. Of course the press eats it up as a story though. It's good for ratings.
Scooter Libby was not indicted for outing an agent.
He was indicted for saying under oath that he didn't know Plame's identity before a conversation with Tim Russert, while many other people testified that Libby knew earlier than that.
...and the gist is that no one will ever know what really happened.
Quote from: Phanatic on October 28, 2005, 02:24:18 PM
Petty crap. Of course the press eats it up as a story though. It's good for ratings.
It's a page two, under-the-fold story really, amplified by the fact that it tangentially touches upon the Iraq War and the New York Times op/ed page (sexy topics), and directly affects the future of the president's chief strategist. Also because Karl Rove is a hated figure by many who would like to string him up for his policies and political techniques regardless of whether he actually did anything illegal.
The perjury charges Libby has been hit with (and which, from the evidence presented, I believe he should be convicted) are the type of thing that would never be prosecuted if there didn't have to be some charges filed to justify a multimillion dollar investigation. It's reminiscent of the Clinton/Monica Lewinsky perjury and the Martha Stewart conviction, both of which were pursued because the original investigation fell apart. When you are parading lots of political scumbags before a jury, it's guaranteed there's at least one lie in there to prosecute.
Quote from: Phanatic on October 28, 2005, 02:24:18 PM
Making excuses for outing an agent is lame. It doesn't matter if it was 5 years ago because anyone who has been in contact with her in another country is at risk as well as potential current agents. Not to mention that it is down right petty and complete horse shtein to out a top secret agent who has dedicated their lives to serve their country over some petty disagreement with her husband. Since when are we not alowed to disagree anymore anyway?
I'm of the mind that the reporters who printed it should be in some trouble too. Yeah you have a duty as a journalist to report the truth, but there was no real story in telling everyone who was an agent. I still can't figure out how it was a smere in the first place. So they garenteed that he will never get another diplomatic post? WTF!
Petty crap. Of course the press eats it up as a story though. It's good for ratings.
Didn't even think of that, so true.
Nah, Woodward was on Larry King last night saying that the CIA did an assessment and that the outing of Valerie Plame didn't cause any damage to intelligence-gathering or danger to spies.
Like I said, page 2. Below the fold.
(http://www.jal.org/blog/archive/2004/08/images/throws_like_a_girl.jpg)
Quote from: MURP on October 28, 2005, 04:50:24 PM
(http://www.jal.org/blog/archive/2004/08/images/throws_like_a_girl.jpg)
omg. 2 rats in one pic.
They've both got a limp-wristed throwing motion.
Quote from: General_Failure on October 28, 2005, 04:58:37 PM
They've both got a limp-wristed throwing motion.
(http://www.luminomagazine.com/2004.10/spotlight/nerds/images/lamar/lamar2.jpg)
His eyes follow me around the room.
Quote from: General_Failure on October 28, 2005, 05:07:24 PM
His eyes follow me around the room.
Only because you want them to.