Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

newest nominee for the SCFollow

#1 Oct 03 2005 at 9:10 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
14,454 posts
Bush nominates Harriet Miers to Supreme Court

Miers works as White House counsel



Quote:
Monday, October 3, 2005; Posted: 9:16 a.m. EDT (13:16 GMT)


Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers for the high court on Monday morning.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers on Monday to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Bush announced his choice in a televised Oval Office event saying, "For the past five years Harriet Miers has served in critical roles in our nation's government."

He called on the Senate to "review her qualifications thoroughly and fairly and to vote on her nomination promptly."

Miers said she was grateful and humbled by the nomination.

"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society," she said.

"If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution." (Watch Bush nominate Miers to the Supreme Court -- 9:09)

If the Senate does confirm Miers, she would join Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second sitting female justice on the bench. O'Connor became the court's first ever female justice in 1981.

Bush offered her the job Sunday night over dinner in the White House residence, White House sources told CNN's Dana Bash.

During the summer, a separate, private vetting process for Miers took place once the president started seriously considering her.

Bush took seriously suggestions by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, and ranking Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, that the president consider candidates from outside the appeals courts, the sources said.

Miers, 60, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association. She also served on the Dallas City Council. (Profile)

More recently, Miers helped lead the administration's search for potential candidates to fill Supreme Court posts. A White House official said that -- at the same time -- Bush considered her as a nominee without her knowledge.

The choice to replace O'Connor could be pivotal. O'Connor has been a key swing vote and has, for example, voted to strike down abortion laws that failed to contain health exceptions. (Full story)

The announcement came shortly before justices were to begin a new term with new Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is the youngest member of the high court.

The term is expected to include rulings on several controversial cases, said Edward Lazarus, a Supreme Court legal analyst. (Case list)

"This is a situation where, from the very moment the justices start back up in October, they're going to be very divided," said Lazarus, who also authored "Closed Chambers," a book on the justices. "It's going to be a lot of friction inside the building."

Roberts was sworn in Thursday, less than four hours after the Senate voted 78-22 to confirm him. He got to work quickly, putting in a full day at the court on Friday. (Related story)

The new chief has a lot of catching up to do, and fast: the court formally begins its work Monday, when oral arguments will be heard for the new term. (Related story)

O'Connor announced her pending retirement last July. Bush initially chose Roberts for her seat, but the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist on September 3 changed the White House's strategy and prolonged the confirmation process.

O'Connor has said she will stay on until she is replaced, making her role in the upcoming term unclear. Under court rules, a justice's vote does not count until a ruling is issued, a process than can take weeks or months. Officials have not said whether O'Connor will be on the bench Monday.

Many legal scholars question whether O'Connor would want to continue hearing cases if her replacement takes over before rulings are issued, thereby negating her vote.


This woman who is being nominated Was Bushes personal lawyer in texas before he was President, and moved up to the Whitehouse to work for him in other roles. She has never been a judge and yet Bush is offering her a nomination to one of the most powerful seats in our judicial system that there is. It seems to be quite the trend with him. Do you think she has a decent chance at being voted into the SC?
#2 Oct 03 2005 at 9:12 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,506 posts
I think Bush I getting a little somethin' for this...They were obviously fu[/u]cking when he was back in Texas.
____________________________
                                     ↓His opinion is ****.↓
#3 Oct 03 2005 at 9:13 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
18,463 posts
Jesus, DSD. What are you, a misogynist? Don't you think a woman has a right to be on the Supreme Court? Isn't a woman's perspective important, aren't they meant to be heard, as well as seen? Are you going to let the fact that she was Bush's personal lawyer affect your judgement unfiarly?

Do you see where I'm going with this? In other words, yes.
#4 Oct 03 2005 at 9:16 AM Rating: Default
Reeve wrote:
I think Bush I getting a little somethin' for this...They were obviously fu[/u]cking when he was back in Texas.


Look at her picture, dude

Even bush has standards
#5 Oct 03 2005 at 9:17 AM Rating: Decent


She hasn't been a judge! How is a dem (or a republican, I suppose) going to look at her record and say she is this or that, because she has no record.

#6 Oct 03 2005 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
I'm guessing fillibuster
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#7 Oct 03 2005 at 9:23 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
14,454 posts
Maybe I am naive, but what I can't understand is that Bush nominated someone who has never held a position as a judge, to the highest seat in the judicial system, even after he has seen the fiasco that was Fema.

Does he not get it that people who are to be placed in very important jobs should actually know what it is that they are doing?
#8 Oct 03 2005 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If I'm recalling right, there's a decent sized list of Supreme Court Justices in our history who didn't have prior robe 'n gavel experience. It's not as if she lacks any legal experience.

Supposively her lack of judicial experience will make it harder to grill her on her qualifications due to lack of a judicial record but, c'mon, short of her giving a Hitler salute during questioning and biting the head off of a kitten, she'll be confirmed by the Republican majority. I doubt she'll have anything so questionable in her past to warrant a real effort on the Democratic side.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Oct 03 2005 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Does he not get it that people who are to be placed in very important jobs should actually know what it is that they are doing?


No, he doesn't.

But he obviously nominated someone who's going to vote on the right.

I had no problem with Roberts (he's dreamy), but the left and probobly the moderate right are going to crap all over this nominee.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#10 Oct 03 2005 at 9:33 AM Rating: Decent


I am not saying I liked him or anything, but I don't think Rehnquist was a judge before he was nominated. It had certainly happened before.


#11 Oct 03 2005 at 9:38 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
If I'm recalling right, there's a decent sized list of Supreme Court Justices in our history who didn't have prior robe 'n gavel experience. It's not as if she lacks any legal experience.

Rehnquist was not a judge prior to his nomination and confirmation to the court.
#12 Oct 03 2005 at 9:39 AM Rating: Decent


Is there an echo in here?

#13 Oct 03 2005 at 9:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Reinquist and some other guy (Powell? Lowell?) were confirmed more or less at the same time for the Supreme Court without prior experience. There's been others but those are the most recent.

While I might not have liked Reinquist's ideologies, I can't say his lack of prior judicial experience fu[i][/i]cked up the workings of the court and he was the Chief Justice.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Oct 03 2005 at 9:42 AM Rating: Decent


Powell

#15 Oct 03 2005 at 9:44 AM Rating: Good
*****
14,454 posts
but were those who were not judges prior also personal lawyers for the President at the time?

I'll be honest I dont know much about how other SC judges got in or what their past careers were before. However, after the list of failures in this presidents term of powerful jobs being given to unqualified people because they knew the President, I am very hesitant in seeing this as something different.
#16 Oct 03 2005 at 9:46 AM Rating: Good
Off topic, but doesn't she look ghastly?
#17 Oct 03 2005 at 9:47 AM Rating: Decent


I completly agree. From what I know right at this moment, I think it is a mistake, and it annoys me. I worry enough about the SC as it is. I can't believe Bush gets to nominate two justices :(

I do not know anything about her though. But, does anyone really know anything about any justice before they start writing opinions? You never know what kind of judge you are really going to get. You could -think- you are voting for a conservative judge, but they could really be moderate. That has also happened before.

#18 Oct 03 2005 at 9:49 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Is there an echo in here?

No, but there is an annoying **** who continues to attempt to insert herself in to the mainstream of Asylum posting like an overzealous high school girl with a bad case of acne and a strong yearning to hang out with the cool kids.
Quote:
I completly agree. From what I know right at this moment, I think it is a mistake, and it annoys me. I worry enough about the SC as it is. I can't believe Bush gets to nominate two justices :(

Please come back when you move in to a big girl bra or get your first period. You don't know f'uck all at this moment. You have read nothing on her that wasn;t in an AP wire story, and you have listened to no one intelligent enough to have an informed opinion. On top of all of that, no one here gives a sh;t how you think this will negatively impact the 8th grade promotional ceremony this year.

Edited, Mon Oct 3 10:58:27 2005 by MoebiusLord
#19 Oct 03 2005 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Lady deadsidedemon wrote:
but were those who were not judges prior also personal lawyers for the President at the time?
You know I'm not one to blindly defend Bush but it stands to reason he's going to nominate someone he has a personal opinion of.

Maybe this woman is the "wrong" choice. I couldn't say. But she does have quite a bit of prior legal experience which puts her miles ahead of Michael "Assistant TO THE Manager" Brown.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Oct 03 2005 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
***
3,128 posts
There is no experience as a judge and then there is no experince with the law. This woman has lots of experience with the law and in dealing with legal system and law theory.

I agree with Jophiel. I think this is the trend to come, picking people with less judicial history and therefore less ammunition for the other side to try and shoot down the nomination.

I think she will be aqpproved fairly smoothly.
#21 Oct 03 2005 at 10:17 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
I think she will be aqpproved fairly smoothly.

She would be, if it weren't for the 45 Democratic senators currently serving in Washington.
#22 Oct 03 2005 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
I question all the whining about Bush picking the SC. I'm liberal myself and the fact that Bush won the election still grates on me but he did win and thus he gets to pick the nominees.

With all the bad decisions that Bush has made during his presidency, though, I was concerned his nominees would be so conservative they'd probably show up for the hearings in pin stripes and with chameleon pinned to their jacket pocket. Particularly since he has a Republican majority.

With Bush as president and with a Republican majority I think America should sigh with relief that he chose the way he did. It could've been much worse.

--DK

course, if idiots didn't slightly outnumber the intelligent we wouldn't be in this position, would we?
#23 Oct 03 2005 at 10:59 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,829 posts
Lady DSD wrote:
Does he not get it that people who are to be placed in very important jobs should actually know what it is that they are doing?


Why should he understand that, when he himself doesn't have the first fu[i][/i]cking clue what he's doing?

#24 Oct 03 2005 at 11:01 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
course, if idiots didn't slightly outnumber the intelligent we wouldn't be in this position, would we?

Go go united country.

Here's another though, if poor people in the inner city g-heh-toes didn't keep multiplying at astronomical rates (not smart enough to figure out that welfare isn't as lucrative as it once was?) the "intelligent" would be outnumbered by a much wider margin. Gratz on the poor, ignorant and unable to use a condom demographic.
#25 Oct 03 2005 at 11:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elderon the Wise wrote:
Off topic, but doesn't she look ghastly?
Speaking of ghastly, is it just me or does Tara Reid look like a Halloween scarecrow set outside of Tammy Faye Baker's house?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Oct 03 2005 at 11:31 AM Rating: Decent

Quote:
No, but there is an annoying **** who continues to attempt to insert herself in to the mainstream of Asylum posting like an overzealous high school girl with a bad case of acne and a strong yearning to hang out with the cool kids....etc etc


I made you that angry just by saying 6 words? That is quite odd. Anger management problem?

Also, who are you to say what I know or do not know?


« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 190 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (190)