Harriet Miers?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:59 pm

Surprised this hasn't been discussed yet.

Look, Roberts, not my favorite candidate but probably qualified. Does Bush know more than three people? How in the world is the former Texas Lottery Commissioner qualified to be a supreme court justice? Anybody know? I don't care about her track record, it doesn't matter, she hasn't done anything except maybe blow Bushie with Laura watching and giving Rove a hand job. What gives?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:37 pm

I believe she became the managing partner of a very large law firm...first woman to do so. Other than that, I guess I'll wait for the senate hearings and maybe find out a bit more.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:29 pm

I believe she was also president of the Texas Bar Assoc. and chief white house counsel.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:32 pm

yea woodchip, wonderful, but how does being a partner get you on the supreme court? She's never clerked, been a judge on a district court, been in the biz, I mean if she was nominated for some lower level court, fine so be it, but the supreme court? Is there some hidden job she had that nobody knows about? Maybe she's a brunette O'Connor, I don't get it. Bush should give his cronies the basic love jobs, ambassadorships to Lithuania, that sort of thing.

Riguere, Alberto was chief counsel up until a year ago, so she's done that for a year. Again, this adds up to Supreme Court Justice???

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:08 pm

Why don't you wait until the hearings and see what she is made of? The bottom line is that nobody is going to know wether or not she is qualified until the hearings are completed. If she isn't worth a flip, it'll show up and she won't be confirmed.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:08 pm

If I recall, Rehnquist didn't have any judicial experience before his nomination. I'm waiting for the hearings, as well; I'd like to find out some more about her.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:12 pm

I believe she has clerked and spent most of her career in corporate law.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:30 pm

HIgh class opening post - way to keep an open mind there, Z.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:38 pm

The hearings won't shed any light on her qualifications; those are already public record. All we'll get from the hearings is an idea of her personality.

It's funny, though. During the Roberts process we were told to focus on his qualifications and his strict constitutionalist interpretations, and that his religious and moral beliefs weren't appropriate criteria for selection or even discussion. Now, for Miers, we're being told that the primary selection criterion is her religion, and that her qualifications aren't appropriate criteria for selection and are immaterial to the discussion.

Makes me want to knock on W's head and shout "hello, McFly!?!?!?"

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:37 am

Zuruck, perhaps those supposed lack of qualifications you list may very well be whats needed on the high court.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:42 pm

Let me put my conspiracy theory on this.

She was chosen because in the long run she will turn out to "surprisingly" support Roe vs Wade. Not necessarily be "pro-choice", but agree that it was the right decision for America.

The republican *politicians* do not want Roe vs Wade overturned. Once it is overturned: on Election day a large part of their base can now stay home, while a large part of the pro-choice camp will now come out. This is *the* dominating issue that forces most religious groups to vote republican. They need it to remain an issue.

This was a chance for the 'right' to end Roe vs Wade. There are judges that could have been nominated that have gone on record saying "that Roe Vs Wade was the worse decision in American History."

Why would the right miss, or even gamble, with such an opportunity?

You guys had a shot at the goal with no goalie, and its not that you missed, you simply declined to take it.

Conspiracy Theory++

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:55 pm

LOL, that was amusing Goob. I needed a good laugh to end my day ...

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:18 pm

Supreme Court appointees being raised from a curent judicial position is a fairly recent thing. As Top Gun pointed out, Rehnquist did not have any judicial experience. I don't know why a candidate would necessarily need any.

I am not saying she is qualified. But on the other hand, her lack of judicial experience doesn't immediately disqualify her either.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:16 pm

I'll admit, as I did, its a conspiracy theory. But tell me Ice, why not slam dunk this one? Thats what I don't get. I mean for *such* an important issue.

This is basically legalized murder for those on the right.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 8:19 pm

Now that this has been in the news for a while and Ive had some time to think about this, Ive decided that this has been one of the few moves by bush that I actually like. Why? Its a human thing to do. As opposed to nominating someone whos high up in the clout department of the republican structure, Bush nominates someone he obviously TRUSTS. Wether this person he has nominated will turn out to be a GOOD nominee to the court will have to be determined by hearings, as it should be, but this has definatly been one of Bush's more human moves since hes been installed in office.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:18 pm

*now* do you guys believe my conspiracy theory?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:38 pm

I was watching Bill Maher on HBO today and I think he brought up some interesting points about Miers. And it's roused some interesting questions for me.

Bush has said that he knows what she's going to be thinking in 20 years. Is that not a little narrow-minded? Do we honestly think that situations and ideals are not going to change in 20 years? Take 9/11 for example, we had always been a country that was not proactive when it came to war, now, we are very, very proactive.

You laughed at Gooberman for his reasoning, but he's right. I know many people that only vote for the person that is pro-life, and that's it. They could care less whatever platform the candidate has as long as he's pro-life. Roe v Wade cannot be overturned, the GOP would lose a tremendous force in action.

This is the highest court in the land. Hard to believe that you people think that lack of experience is a good thing, the buck stops at these judges, they make the big, big decisions. They give the office of presidency to the candidates now, they take away our land, I would like the people on these courts to have some experience, but if Rehnquist didn't, I guess it's no big deal.

In the end, I really don't care. I guess I shouldn't even bother posting things like this. Chances are, this lady, if she's confirmed, will do nothing to affect my life, ever.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:35 am

Zuruck wrote:....In the end, I really don't care. I guess I shouldn't even bother posting things like this. Chances are, this lady, if she's confirmed, will do nothing to affect my life, ever.

Chances are she will affect your life, numerous times, if she's confirmed!
Either directly or indirectly the cases decided by the Supreme Court usually do.
From whether or not you can download mp3's to whether or not the government can hold citizens suspected of terrorism indefinitely in secret detention camps...and a thousand things in between.
**************

On another note;
Here's a conspiracy theory for you. Miers was Bush's personal lawyer and also an associate White House Council. He's worked with her for years, he only met and interviewed the others this year. How much do you know about the person you interview for a job once compared to the person you worked with for over ten years?
My guess is he knows exactly how she will vote on a number of issues without even having to ask her a single question including a number of issues that affect him directly.
So imagine she's on the court when a special prosecutor is trying to impeach him or indict one of his underlings....how do you think she will rule?

She wrote opinion on POW status for terrorists, she no doubt offered her opinion on the release of a CIA agents name to the press, etc.
On any number of issues that the Bush administration may take legal heat for, this woman has probably told Bush what she thinks is legal and she's part of the group that is responsible for a lot of the positions the administration took and now she's going to be a judge that decides whether or not those positions are legal!

Bush is a lot smarter than most people give him credit for. He put her up there with the *wink* *wink* to the religious right that she's going to overturn Roe v Wade hoping the left will make that the focus of the fight while actually he's putting an insider in the court to keep him safe....

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:14 am

Will, you're a smart cat, so I think we can both agree that this is not "Bush's" choice. It's Rove/Cheney's choice, as they inherently run the office.

But you are exactly right, he does know her better than anyone else. Now that questions her validity to me even more, it's no secret, I do not like this president. I think he's done more harm than good in the overall view of his tenure.

I just wish the Democrats actually had the balls to stand up against these nominees. Instead of just spouting words to look good, if they actually had a backbone I think more people would recognize that and follow them.

You really think the Supreme Court matters? Biggest decision they made this year...that a local govt can seize your land for whatever they want. Nice extension of emminent domain.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:18 pm

Zuruck wrote:You really think the Supreme Court matters? Biggest decision they made this year...that a local govt can seize your land for whatever they want. Nice extension of emminent domain.

Maybe you haven't busted your butt to purchase a home that you can call your own and pass down to your children but I promise you that matters alot to me!!!
Having the supreme court say that my home or business can be siezed so a town can increase their tax revenue base is a big F#^@king deal to me!!!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:44 pm

Zuruck wrote:Will, you're a smart cat, so I think we can both agree that this is not "Bush's" choice. It's Rove/Cheney's choice, as they inherently run the office.

Man, you've got to stop spouting that mantra. I think you have more smarts than to be sucked in by the party dogma. At least I hope so.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 6:06 pm

will, that comment was sarcastic. Of course that is a big deal.

woodchip, you disagree? why do you think he appoints the same people over and over again? rove and cheney run the country, it's not that big of a deal, just accept it.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 6:28 pm

Zuruck wrote:will, that comment was sarcastic. Of course that is a big deal.

Well you have confused me then because earlier you said:
"Chances are, this lady, if she's confirmed, will do nothing to affect my life, ever."
So what's up? Did you change your mind on the impact she may have?

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:26 pm

As much as I disapprove of Bush, I'm going to wait and see how this one plays out.