White House counsel Miers nominated to High Court

Ghastly - I left off the smiley face - but my 'descend-into-anarchy lack-of-order liberals' argument is BS - is was meant as a swipe to the comment of 'what's best for this country'. I just don't buy that argument whether it comes from my side of the aisle or Belts - because who of us is really the sole judge of 'what is best for the country'. Thats why we have the elections, to determine who the country feels will lead us, and decide what is best for the US. Bush won, so to say he's not doing what is best for the country has no foundation other than purely personal feelings from those that don't like him...imho.

So sorry if you mistook my tone as slamming the liberals en masse as anarchists...because they are not, and I don't view them as such.

Bagga - what got me was how people have been calling for a moderate from the forums, and by all accounts, she seems to be the right side of moderate...vs the right side of conservative. I'd expect some latitude and appreciation that Bush didn't pick a slobbering rabid repeal Roe v Wade conservative...but instead we have the same politically divisive responses that make Washington a place of stand still movement.

Is it cronyism - none of us can say honestly except for Bush. He did the same picking Cheney for VP, and in this case, she led the hunt for his SC nomination, and somewhere, he just decided she was a better candidate than the other choices. Is that cronyism...well, Brown to FEMA was cronyism, and the new lady he is appointing to the large homeland sec division is cronyism. But I'm not ready to label this cronyism unless she is proved to be an 'unqualified' candidate. If I'm shown that she is unfit to serve, then I'll concur with you - but just to label a nominee a crony because she works for the president, dismisses her accomplishments and qualifications outright - and that is what I am not ready to do. So - at this point, no I don't say its cronyism.

No real decision by me to be made. She is the nominee, and we won't know what type of justice she'll make until 5-10 years down the road when she's sitting on the bench...its unfortunate, but thats the reality. I'd have liked a more locked in conservative nominee, but I also know the fight to confirm with Bush a vastly weakened political figure would have been bruising, and most likely never won - so I'll take what we have, and see what comes out about her in the weeks ahead.

Conservatives are up in arms and ready to slit their wrists...and all I hear from my liberal colleagues on the other side of the aisle (i.e, you all) is this is such a crony pick, that she is wrong, its unheard of to pick someone who's not a federal judge, etc.

Hogwash! OK, I understand you all don't like Bush, and in cases I appreciate that more than you can imagine. But when you call for something, and hope for, and then you don't get a nomination for a card-carrying repeal Roe v Wade Conservative judge, I'd expect to click on this link and see something positive. But nope - God forbid someone opens their eyes from their purely bias hatred of the President and his way of doing business to actually reflect on the fact that Miers is as likely to be a Souter as an O'Conner as a Kennedy...and whats wrong with that.

Reality check here. I'm one of the leading examples on these boards of liberal stances, but you seem to forget I came out and said I think Roberts will do well as Chief Justice. For Miers, I pointed out that we did not know her positions, which at the time was true, and that it was unusual to claim that she was the "best choice" available, which is a fine position to take based on the evidence. Neither of these positions is based on a hatred of Bush, and you don't seem to think that either my caution on Miers or my qualified support for Roberts is noteworthy. And finally, no one is saying it's "unprecedented" to pick someone without judicial experience - I posted on that several times and even cited my sources.

My friend, you are massively mis-stating the "liberal" position, and making it seem as if any opposition to Miers is based on poor reasoning and bias. I think you need to acknowledge that that's not so, on these boards, and you need to come down off the high horse and give up this "every liberal makes their choices based on a hatred of Bush" line. It's patently not true, at least not for me and I know others think the same way here. It's pretty unfair and unkind.

Hey, I'll take that over liberal, descend-into-anarchy lack-of-order any day of the week!

Pretty harsh.

Ghastly - I left off the smiley face - but my 'descend-into-anarchy lack-of-order liberals' argument is BS - is was meant as a swipe to the comment of 'what's best for this country'. I just don't buy that argument whether it comes from my side of the aisle or Belts - because who of us is really the sole judge of 'what is best for the country'. Thats why we have the elections, to determine who the country feels will lead us, and decide what is best for the US. Bush won, so to say he's not doing what is best for the country has no foundation other than purely personal feelings from those that don't like him...imho.

If Bush had won 100% of the vote (with 100% of eligible American's voting) you would be right. Last time I checked he didn't, so your argument here does not hold up.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/...

Yeah because Bush always does what is right for America. Sorry, but I do not agree with what he is proposing with regards to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. American's do not want the military as law enforcement for a damn good reason. Just an FYI, if Clinton had tried this I would be just as pissed.

Bagga - what got me was how people have been calling for a moderate from the forums, and by all accounts, she seems to be the right side of moderate...vs the right side of conservative. I'd expect some latitude and appreciation that Bush didn't pick a slobbering rabid repeal Roe v Wade conservative...but instead we have the same politically divisive responses that make Washington a place of stand still movement.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...

Doesn't seem like a moderate to me. Roberts seems like more of a moderate at this point. Yes we still need more info, but it doesn't look like that much of a "moderate leaning right" at this point. On top of that we will probably know less about her than Roberts with out a Judicial paper trail (see my dissatisfaction with this below) and Bush invoking Executive Privledge (he didn't yet, but in his press conference where it was brought up he basically said he will) just throws more fuel on the fire.

Is it cronyism - none of us can say honestly except for Bush. He did the same picking Cheney for VP, and in this case, she led the hunt for his SC nomination, and somewhere, he just decided she was a better candidate than the other choices. Is that cronyism...well, Brown to FEMA was cronyism, and the new lady he is appointing to the large homeland sec division is cronyism. But I'm not ready to label this cronyism unless she is proved to be an 'unqualified' candidate. If I'm shown that she is unfit to serve, then I'll concur with you - but just to label a nominee a crony because she works for the president, dismisses her accomplishments and qualifications outright - and that is what I am not ready to do. So - at this point, no I don't say its cronyism.

Sorry, but she has been his personal lawyer in the Whitehouse as well as other Whitehouse positions on top of the years she spent working for/with him when he was Governor of Texas. This IS cronyism. Not all cronyism is bad if, as you say, she is qualified. However, to nominate someone with as close of ties as they have without any actual judicial experience (sorry, I think this is a must even if tradition says it's not always necessary) does, as I said earlier, smack of a level of cronyism that I consider BS.

No one will ever win the 100% of the vote - so no one is perfect in 'what is best for the country'. My point was that the criticism above was that it would be nice if Bush did what is best for the country, and by accounts, his election puts him in the majority as to determining what is best for the country. Not saying it will turn out right by any means...just was saying that the 'best for the country' is purely subjective, and by count of the electorate, not a valid argument other than on a personal 'feeling' level.

I'm sure Bush is comfortable with her as a conservative in his mold - no question about it - and he nominated her, imho, because she is a conservative, but with no paper trail, and much of her opinions secret because of executive privelage, she will be tough to find reasons to vote against with - that is the political game. So, in Bush's opinion, I'm sure she is the 'best qualified' for the job - conservative, minimal paper trail to cover up her views, etc...

My point though, was that none of us really know what type of justice she might make, so I prefer pointed examples like some of you are putting out now - vice the charges of cronyism that struck me up front when I read this forum.

Robear, your initial posts was very middle of the road - just didn't point to it as the exclusion of what I read initially in the forum.

As to cronyism - based on your definition Ghastly, I can't argue with the case you set before us. I tend to view cronyism as picking a crony based on personal friendship vice qualifications - Brown at FEMA for example. I'm not ready to take that view yet on this nominee.

My point though, was that none of us really know what type of justice she might make,

While I agree with that point you can't honestly say out of all the judges, experts etc, Bush's personal lawyer is the BEST person for the job.

Really. Say that right now. You agree that she is the BEST person for the job. No more tap dancing please.

Pigpen's retort executive summary:

Tupac Shakur wrote:

Noone can judge me but God!

Pigpen, I think your tone SUCKS big time in this thread, please quit posting in it.

I don't have a lot of time, so I will get right to the point. Miers is almost assuredly the wrong pick.

The Supreme Court should be made up of the leading legal minds of our time. Rehnquist might not have had judicial experience, but there is no question he was a luminary of legal thought. Miers in no way strikes me as having the ability to perform Constitutional reasoning in any significant manner.

She is not a brilliant jurist, she is not a scholar of the law, she has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or the public forum. If it she wasn't a friend of Bush's (and female) she would never have even been considered.

The other name that I had been hearing as a potential nominee was Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit, who is a brilliant jurist and proven Constitutionalist. If he had wanted a woman, he could have gone with Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen or Edith Jones.

God I am disappointed.

Pigpen, the problems most of us see with this pick is the following:

#1. Never been a judge. A good defence lawyer does not make a good judge. Has she ever had a job on the prosecution side of the law? I think not.
#2. She was in charge of finding candidates for this position. So it looks like she said she was the best choice
#3. Bush had plently, I mean plenty of choices for a conservative judge with experience to pick. He chose her. It looks like he chose someone because of personal and political reasons, rather than her experience with constitutional law.. oh and BTW:
#4. She has no experience with Constitutional law.

The only problem I have with Roberts is his ruling on Hamden vs Rumsfeld (My apologies on the liberal source of this material, I could not find the actual ruling), as I have stated before he should have excused himself. Other than that he is very qualified to be on the court considering his work history. You cannot say the same for Miers.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

I don't have a lot of time, so I will get right to the point. Miers is almost assuredly the wrong pick.

The Supreme Court should be made up of the leading legal minds of our time. Rehnquist might not have had judicial experience, but there is no question he was a luminary of legal thought. Miers in no way strikes me as having the ability to perform Constitutional reasoning in any significant manner.

She is not a brilliant jurist, she is not a scholar of the law, she has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or the public forum. If it she wasn't a friend of Bush's (and female) she would never have even been considered.

The other name that I had been hearing as a potential nominee was Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit, who is a brilliant jurist and proven Constitutionalist. If he had wanted a woman, he could have gone with Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen or Edith Jones.

God I am disappointed.

I agree with you 100% and this is why I say he is not doing what is best for the country.

You might not like Ann Coulter, but her comment on Miers:

Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on "The West Wing."

Heck, if she pisses off conservatives, maybe there's something to this Rachel Dratch look-alike.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Pigpen's retort executive summary:

Tupac Shakur wrote:

Noone can judge me but God!

Actually, I believe it's "Only God Can Judge Me!" but I may be rusty on my Hibbity-Hop.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

You might not like Ann Coulter, but her comment on Miers:

Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on "The West Wing."

Well thats not fair either, the conservatives are scared of her. She could be "Souter II" and they will do anything to stop that.

I still think she is going to get confirmed.

Mayfield wrote:

Well thats not fair either, the conservatives are scared of her. She could be "Souter II" and they will do anything to stop that.

I still think she is going to get confirmed.

Come on lets get some optimism in here. That our elected leaders will look at the situation from a rational view point and see that Miers' lack of experience doesn't make her even remotely qualified to sit behind a desk and judge.

SECOND, and more importantly - where do you find foundation that the conservative, non-activists, strict constitutional interpretation line of thinking isn't whats right for the country. Hey, I'll take that over liberal, descend-into-anarchy lack-of-order any day of the week!

I believe that strict constitutional interpretation is right for the country. I supported Judge Roberts and I think somebody like Miers is a fine choice for the Supreme Court. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that the President would select his personal lawyer for that position. I'm not saying its wrong, I just don't like it. C'mon, Pigpen, you must be able to at least understand why selecting your personal lawyer for the Supreme Court could be viewed as questionable.

On the bright side, my new country is up and running. Key memebers of this board will have positions available in the government too.

IMAGE(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/TheRealEdwin/224.gif)

Wow I haven't seen those comics in ages.

Oh, ho ho! You almost had me there you rascal. No posting means no posting. - Certis

Pigpen wrote:

Post Removed

Yeah, ok PP, so you're admitting to pure trolling.

I'm pretty sure that is against the rules of the forums. Not cool.

Sorry I don't believe this is his cousin and, based on what Certis said, bad idea posting in here again.

If you don't like her, state reasons why other than 'Bush picked her, so it must be wrong'

Can we hold you this yourself?

I agree that it's nearly impossible for any of us, but did you give any thought to your own postings, at times, and your own sig, before you called others on what, in fact, we've all indulged in at one time or another?

Food for thought. It's depressing trying to find any way to put this.

Rat Boy wrote:

Heck, if she pisses off conservatives, maybe there's something to this Rachel Dratch look-alike.

At least Rachel Dratch has a nice rack... Yes.. I said it..

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

You might not like Ann Coulter, but her comment on Miers:

Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on "The West Wing."

And Dr. Sowell's article entitled Harriet Who?

Maybe I've read The Prince too often (Or give The Nakedest Emperor Ever too much credit), but this nomination might be the political feint that Gonzales and Roberts were both anticipated to be. A sacrificial lamb to draw fire. My money is on her not withstanding the confirmation process. That would then allow Bush to push through an ultra-conservative Christian Fundie while branding any opposition, no matter how rational, as stonewalling. He can't do that with Meirs considering Roberts relatively smooth, and all too recent, confirmation.

Side note : O'Connor has already agreed to be a placeholder for as long as necessary. A new justice is not an immediate necessity. This could go on until the next session.

The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in the New York Times.

Ah, yes, all liberal SC justices are striving to look good at cocktail parties in DC. That's so far from the truth, I don't know where to start hacking it to pieces.

This is why Sowell is off my reading list. While he certainly *understands* logic, he has to step away from it into these politically correct reader panderings, and his conclusions constantly use these bizarre, highly biased statements as "evidence", whether directly or in this case as a casual smear. He never misses a chance for the high-brow snide aside, and it hurts his credibility. After all, if you can't make your case without insulting your opponent, readers should wonder why that is...

It's unfortunate, I think he's capable of better work.

Robear wrote:

and his conclusions constantly use these bizarre, highly biased statements as "evidence", whether directly or in this case as a casual smear. He never misses a chance for the high-brow snide aside, and it hurts his credibility. After all, if you can't make your case without insulting your opponent, readers should wonder why that is...

Welcome to the exciting world of punditry! It's articles like that which are the reason I don't think any meaningful debate takes place.