Anyone give a toss about the nomination for the Supreme Court?
I must say it is very modest to pick yourself when asked to find the best person for the job. :lol: How Dick Cheney-like. I must say that the only person I've heard say she's good for the job is Harry Reid. Which must have conservatives in a bit ofa bother. :lol: And it turns out she donated to Al Gore's campaign in 1988. :lol: I wasn't stunned when all the Dems who might run for President voted against John Roberts, but if I were them I'd vote against Miers on principle. This pick is the epitome of cronyism - she's the President's aid for goodness sake! Let me be clearer - she is the President's lawyer!!!. She has no real credentials, no judicial experience at all, and has leapforgged lots of better qualified people. As I read somewhere - nobody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States.
Oddly I haven't read many Dems who are unhappy with the pick - but loads of Republicans who think she's awful. Some wanted nutters like Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown but I've been pleasantly suprised by those who just think she's crap. Dems seem more than happy to support her because she isn't predisposed to scrap Roe Vs Wade. Well, I don't want to see Roe overturned either, but I don't want the President's lawyer on the court either. Especially while he's still in office.
Oh...and this will please the right -
http//www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=2832
"Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. ...Recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court."
I'm definitely with her on number one. Number two is very much a number two.
I've only just read the news on AP wire so don't have much to form an opinion on.
First thoughts though were that if it annoys the hardcore conservatives, then that's alright by me. smile
The Supreme Court always seems a bit hit and miss to me anyway that I don't really get excited by it. Half the time they seem to just wriggle out of making a decision and send stuff back to where it came from (i.e. lower courts) on technicalities.
I really wish I could say I didn't give a toss as most of the rulings do not effect me.. but last sessions ruling on eminate domain really made me want to march on Washington DC and .. well, protest in a manner fitting a British subject who could have his visa cancelled )
I will be surprised though if she does end up being approved.. unfortunately, that did not stop Bolton getting into his job.
The down side is that we are likely to have endless news articles on ROE v. WADE again.
The endless be-all-and-end-all of Roe v Wade makes me want to hit people. How shallow can politics be?
Anyhoo - I took a look at REdstae.org. They aren't happy with Miers for entirely different reasons than I am.
http//www.redstate.org/story/2005/10/3/74558/9332
"Bush lied to us....Bush is a gutless, abortionist liar. I spit on him. Seriously."
"I cannot believe that I ever trusted this man. I am such a fool."
"he picks a 60-year-old woman who's never been married and has never had kids. are we really to believe that she'll vote to overturn roe? are we to believe that this woman hasn't had sex outside of marriage over the past several decades? and if she has, hasn't she been counting on the right to abortion just as other career-oriented women do? bush has betrayed us. i will never again contribute to the republican party."
Oh my! lol
I'll say it again though. Dems must be ecstatic she's not an obvious loon. But she's not qualified in any way, and is the President's personal lawyer. Either Bush knows he's gonna get dragged before the court and needs her on there, or he is an incredibly arrogant President.
Sorry Mr. B but you have the wrong end of the stick. First I have no brief for the President or his hangers on. he asked Cheney to find him a Vice Presidential candidate and told him what he wanted. The description fitted Cheney, was based on Cheney, and when no one matched, the President asked him. The same with Miers. She will not be influencing the court because if anything comes up where she was involved, she will recuse herself. This is a weakness from the administration point of view. she won't be voting on cases that involve the administrations policies.
Some of the greatest justices have come to the court without judicial experience, in fact, the court works better when it has members with various backgrounds. The lady does have credentials, she has some remarkable achievements. At this point, I don't know if she should be supported or not.
Don't expect "the Dems" to do anything coherent, they are all over the placeYou have Reid saying one thing, Leahy another and Pelosi something else again. They don't know if they want to stay in the centre where Clinton brought them or move to the base. The dummie don't realise that they could do both, as the republicans have; work the centre but use code words to assure the base.
The most brilliant man on the court is Scalia. Maybe somebody who is a hard worker rather than a scholar will be better.
I'll say it again though. Dems must be ecstatic she's not an obvious loon.
Thats probably why they don't mind the choice. I mean, of all the loons that Bush could have chosen, she's probably the best they could ask for.
Don't expect "the Dems" to do anything coherent, they are all over the placeYou have Reid saying one thing, Leahy another and Pelosi something else again. They don't know if they want to stay in the centre where Clinton brought them or move to the base. The dummie don't realise that they could do both, as the republicans have; work the centre but use code words to assure the base.
You mean they actually have free thinkers and are not a bunch of neocon clones who get their political 'heads kicked in' if they step out of line? :roll:
I just can't get over her striking resemblance to the Emperor in Star Wars.
Don't expect "the Dems" to do anything coherent, they are all over the placeYou have Reid saying one thing, Leahy another and Pelosi something else again. They don't know if they want to stay in the centre where Clinton brought them or move to the base. The dummie don't realise that they could do both, as the republicans have; work the centre but use code words to assure the base.
You mean they actually have free thinkers and are not a bunch of neocon clones who get their political 'heads kicked in' if they step out of line? :roll:
Even free thinkers have to get together if they want to achieve something. if you want a political party it has to have some kind of coherent message. The biggest desire for them should be the removal of the religious nazis and to do that they need to have common cause.
Sorry Mr. B but you have the wrong end of the stick. First I have no brief for the President or his hangers on. he asked Cheney to find him a Vice Presidential candidate and told him what he wanted. The description fitted Cheney, was based on Cheney, and when no one matched, the President asked him. The same with Miers. She will not be influencing the court because if anything comes up where she was involved, she will recuse herself. This is a weakness from the administration point of view. she won't be voting on cases that involve the administrations policies.
Scalia refused to recuse himself when Judicial Watch and Sierra Club brought their case to the Supreme Court against Dick Cheney and his Energy Committee. Of course the Supreme Court ruled against Cheney having to hand over documents from the committee meetings that were demanded in discovery (and granted by lower courts). Shortly before the case went to the Supreme Court, Scalia was riding on Cheney's VP jet and going hunting with him.
Scalia has his good moments I admit but I'm not always impressed by how partisan he really appears to be.
Even free thinkers have to get together if they want to achieve something. if you want a political party it has to have some kind of coherent message. The biggest desire for them should be the removal of the religious nazis and to do that they need to have common cause.
True. Is also one of the Republican strengths - the ability to be on the same page, or the ability for numerous people to repeat the same untruth so much that people think its actually true. Sometimes is almost like the Manturian Candidate.
Scalia refused to recuse himself when Judicial Watch and Sierra Club brought their case to the Supreme Court against Dick Cheney and his Energy Committee. Of course the Supreme Court ruled against Cheney having to hand over documents from the committee meetings that were demanded in discovery (and granted by lower courts). Shortly before the case went to the Supreme Court, Scalia was riding on Cheney's VP jet and going hunting with him.
Scalia has his good moments I admit but I'm not always impressed by how partisan he really appears to be.
To be honest, the fact that they were guests on the same plane didn't worry me, I don't think Scalia is a sellout. And he has never been a mystery, we knew pretty well where he stood when he was nominated.
Very early this morning before the paint fumes and Lavender essential oil got to me I swear I woke up to someone saying George Bush used to refer to said lady as " a pit bull in size six shoes"
Well, if he was gonna call me that in public I'd want a helluva lot of money upfront and under the counter on every issue, every time. Yes, I doubt her objectiveness. She's a lawyer, really good at manipulating the law to favor her case. She's never been a judge. Objectivity will be a new one for her.
I don't actually think it will make much difference now. The economics of the country are awry, the pinch is being felt. As the big guy in Control Room said, 'America will sort out it's own government, it's called democracy. ' Nothing like a really cold winter for sharpening the wits of the proletariat. wink wink
There are many presidences for nominating a lawyer who has never been a judge the late william Rehnquist was one such instance.Earl Warren was another