channonc 466 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Link What does everyone think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tigrinum Major Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Probably a wise decision, politically speaking. He was getting heat from the conservatives and it would have been a bigger battle than it was worth in the confirmation process. He will get slammed by the Democrats for the reasoning behind his decision as they will claim that he is hiding something from the public. Still a good decision in a political sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,137 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Nice lady. Not Supreme Court material though, and that's really what it all comes down to. The appearance of cronyism on W's part was hard to dismiss, when given the lack of her legal and Constitutional philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,867 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 It looked as if there were many more against her than for her, so it was probably a good move. The real question is who will be the next appointee? Will W appease the conservatives or will he try to avoid a fight with the dems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,534 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 While I certainly feel for Ms. Mires and the "crap" that the media has put her through, I look for the President to now nominate a "Conservative's CONSERVATIVE." He will throw the red meat out there and let the libs show the entire country, once again, just how far left they really are. This is gonna' get FUN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piglet 0 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Now that Bush has caved in, the Democrats know how weak he is, and will hopefully be emboldened to oppose any extremist nutcase the Administration throws at them. I'm ready for Bozo the Clown to be the next nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,867 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Now that Bush has caved in, the Democrats know how weak he is, and will hopefully be emboldened to oppose any extremist nutcase the Administration throws at them.I'm ready for Bozo the Clown to be the next nominee. 193021[/snapback] I would say this administration has refrained from nominating any "extremist nutcase's". Irregardless of what the extremist nutcase's on the left have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUJarhead 72 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I'm ready for Bozo the Clown to be the next nominee. 193021[/snapback] As far as I know, Howard Dean is still the chairman of the DNC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,534 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Dean? I thought he was talking about hitlary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny AU-92 0 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I'm ready for Bozo the Clown to be the next nominee.193021[/snapback] As far as I know, Howard Dean is still the chairman of the DNC. 193052[/snapback] ZING!! Post of the DAY!!! :smash: Piglet Bush didn't withdraw her name because the Dems opposed her - it was because the Repubs opposed her. No way to prove she was religiously fanatical enough for some vocal right wingers who think being anti-abortionis the "be all end all". I hate to break it to these folks, but no way does Roe v Wade get overturned. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but no way is it overturned, as there is no way in this political climate to ever stack the court with enough arch-conservatives to guarantee a ruling against it. Honestly, I wish they would let this go and focus on someone's LEGAL opinions on stuff that matters on a national level, not on trying to legislate morality from the bench. The members of the High Court should not be selected purely for their presumed impact on social matters that ebb and flow with time. We need true Constitutional interpretation. I feel so sorry for Ms. Miers. Granted, i wouldn't wish confirmation hearings on anyone, but she never got a chance to refute or reply to all the crap that has been spread about her. I guess now she can take her seven headed alien love child back to the house she shares with Elvis and JFK and spend the rest of her days planning to use her infared laser guns to melt the polar ice caps and destroy the world after sending its inhabitants into the seventh level of hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wishbone 0 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Judging from Bush's history, he will nominate a conservative, or at least a conservative in Reagan's mold. I think he will pick another moderate. Unfortunately for non-commie Americans, the dems nominate Ginsberg-types for the courts. The republicans in charge are usely too busy counting their money to put up a fight based on ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,582 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 (AUJarhead ... Niiiiccceee!) Any of the following would be fine with me IMHO: Link Samuel A. Alito, 55: A strong conservative voice in his 15 years on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considered to be among the most liberal. He has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.Emilio Garza, 58: Sits on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and was considered for a Supreme Court seat by the first President Bush. He has become best known for his views that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that abortion regulation should be decided by state legislatures. Alberto Gonzales, 50: U.S. attorney general and former White House counsel. Critics contend a memo he wrote on treatment of terrorism detainees helped lead to abuses like those seen at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Conservatives have urged Bush not to nominate him. Edith Hollan Jones, 55: Has served on the 5th Circuit since 1985. The first President Bush considered Jones for a vacancy on the Supreme Court in 1990, but nominated David H. Souter. J. Michael Luttig, 51: Worked in the Justice Department during the administration of the first President Bush and has served on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. He was a law clerk to the late Chief Justice Warren Burger from 1983-84. Michael McConnell, 50: A judge on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He enjoys bipartisan support in the academic community. Based on his reading of the law, he opposed President Clinton's impeachment and the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore that made George W. Bush president. Theodore B. Olson, 64: Was solicitor general, the president's top Supreme Court lawyer. He argued the Supreme Court case that gave Bush the victory in the 2000 presidential election. His wife, Barbara, a conservative commentator, was killed when terrorists crashed a jet into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. Larry D. Thompson, 59: Was deputy attorney general during Bush's first term, making Thompson the federal government's highest-ranking black law enforcement official. Thompson is a longtime friend of Clarence Thomas who sat next to Thomas more than a decade ago during contentious Senate hearings on Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court. J. Harvie Wilkinson III, 60: Also on the 4th Circuit. He has been consistently conservative in his rulings since being put on the court by Reagan in 1984. Wilkinson wrote the majority 4th Circuit opinion in 1996 upholding the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that barred gays serving in the military from revealing their sexual orientation. Priscilla Owen, 50: Owen was confirmed in May for a seat on the 5th Circuit after a drawn-out Senate battle. Democrats argued that Owen let her political beliefs to color her rulings. They were particularly critical of her decisions in abortion cases involving teenagers. Miguel Estrada, 44: President Bush nominated Estrada, a conservative Hispanic lawyer, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit during his first term, but the nomination was thwarted by Senate Democrats who said Estrada lacked the judicial experience to serve and didn't make clear his views on abortion. Edith Brown Clement, 57: On the 5th Circuit since 2001, Clement is known as a no-nonsense judge with a reputation for being tough on crime and meting out stiff sentences. Her 99-0 Senate confirmation vote to the circuit court in November 2001 suggests she has broad appeal. She was touted as a top possibility for the vacancy to which Roberts was nominated. Janice Rogers Brown, 56: Newly confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after a bitter Senate battle and filibuster, Brown is an outspoken black Christian conservative who supports limits on abortion rights and corporate liability. Alice Batchelder, 61: A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Batchelder has been a reliable conservative vote on abortion, affirmative action and gun control. Bush's father appointed the former high school English teacher to the court with jurisdiction over Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Karen Williams, 54: A former trial lawyer, Williams is known as one of the most conservative judges on the nation's most conservative federal appeals court, the Richmond-based 4th Circuit. In 1999, Williams wrote the 4th Circuit opinion that would have paved the way for overturning the landmark 1966 decision in Miranda that outlines the rights read to criminal suspects. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to let it stand. Maura Corrigan, 57: The Michigan Supreme Court justice is a walking billboard for the conservative mantra of judicial restraint the notion that judges should stick to interpreting the law and not making it. Her resume includes a number of firsts, among them: first woman to serve as chief assistant U.S. attorney in Detroit, first woman to serve as chief judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals. Maureen Mahoney, 50: Often described as the female version of Chief Justice John Roberts, Mahoney, a lawyer in private practice, clerked for the late Justice William Rehnquist, served as deputy solicitor general under Kenneth Starr and has argued cases before the Supreme Court. Mahoney might upset conservatives with one of her major court wins, the landmark University of Michigan Law School case defending affirmative action. AUJarhead, you might be interested to know that Emilio Garza is a former Marine CPT (company commander in Viet Nam.) My personal preference would be for Bush to nominate Miguel Estrada. Just the entertainment value alone in seeing Ted Kennedy apoplectic on the Senate floor or Shumer/Biden/Leahy frothing at the mouth and railing incoherently would be worth it. Sadly, I don't think Bush realizes his poll numbers would shoot up if he could just unhinge the Looney Left for all to see even for a brief moment. A pity, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piglet 0 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 I am sooo glad John Kerry is President! I mean can you imagine what sort of Supreme Court nominees Bush would have offered up? Probably whatever old lady wandered by the hallway one day. And the worst thing is because Bush and the Republicans are ALL-POWERFUL there would have been no way to stop the appointment! Caligula's horse would have been the newest Supreme Court justice, guaranteed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,557 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Judging from Bush's history... 193096[/snapback] Judging from his history, he might nominate his tax lawyer. Or the guy who drew up his will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,965 Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 Miers was a Left field pick, as in out of Left Field, not from the Left. Miers was not soundly Conservatve enough to win the support of the Right. As for qualifications, we could do an all day thread on "people that were not the best qualified that did a great job anyway." JFK named RFK Atty General. He was in no way THE best qualified, but he was great at the job. Maybe one of the the BEST. Carter was well qualified to be President, Better than Reagan anyway. Reagan was hands down the better President tho. Great resumes only mean..... great resumes. There is sometimes a non-connection thing where someone steps up to the plate at the right time. Another favorite example? Harry Truman. Not very qualified, but a great President. I am not endorsing Miers either, just fuel/food for thought. More? Myself and War Eagle Nation. I was nowhere the most senior, nor the most educated, nor the most Web experienced. My resume sucked on running a message board. But, here we are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,557 Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 Miers was a Left field pick, as in out of Left Field, not from the Left.Miers was not soundly Conservatve enough to win the support of the Right. As for qualifications, we could do an all day thread on "people that were not the best qualified that did a great job anyway." JFK named RFK Atty General. He was in no way THE best qualified, but he was great at the job. Maybe one of the the BEST. Carter was well qualified to be President, Better than Reagan anyway. Reagan was hands down the better President tho. Great resumes only mean..... great resumes. There is sometimes a non-connection thing where someone steps up to the plate at the right time. Another favorite example? Harry Truman. Not very qualified, but a great President. I am not endorsing Miers either, just fuel/food for thought. More? Myself and War Eagle Nation. I was nowhere the most senior, nor the most educated, nor the most Web experienced. My resume sucked on running a message board. But, here we are... 193372[/snapback] I general, I agree with much of this view. Miers also suffered in comparison with Roberts. Had Miers been selected first, I don't think she would have had as much difficult. There was a certain amount of "cronyism" in her selection, but that doesn't mean she couldn't do the job. It's a shame she was torpedoed before the hearing. It would have been interesting to actually hear from her and have that to judge. So much for the President's nominee deserving an "up or down vote". Now we know how much that "principle" really means to many on the Far Right. Miers clearly didn't have a well defined constitutional philosphy. Her jobs had not really allowed for that to develop, unless that's how she had spent much of her spare time, which really wasn't in evidence. But I think that's overrated. So what if her philosophy evolves over time? That bothers the people who want to be able to predict exactly how she will vote on key issues, but I don't see someone not being set in stone as a bad thing. There are nine people at the table. Miers would have brought in a certain real world perspective that could have contributed to the debate. Maybe she would have been a pleasant surprise. We'll never really know, but she was treated unfairly, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wishbone 0 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 One thing I would like to say is that there really is no Far Right currently in American politics. If you base your opinion on someone by how they represent themselves through their words and actions, I don't think you can find many if any far right conservatives in power. I think the Republican base wanted a conservative judge, not a puppet for the interests of big business. Miers was obviously a crony who had no real conservative beliefs. In fact there was evidence that she would pursue a course of judicial activism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,557 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 One thing I would like to say is that there really is no Far Right currently in American politics. If you base your opinion on someone by how they represent themselves through their words and actions, I don't think you can find many if any far right conservatives in power. I think the Republican base wanted a conservative judge, not a puppet for the interests of big business. Miers was obviously a crony who had no real conservative beliefs. In fact there was evidence that she would pursue a course of judicial activism. 193725[/snapback] There are certainly Far Right people in power and the "Far Right's" influence and power goes well beyond the numbers in elected office. We don't really know what she believes, but the fact that someone would say she "had no real conservative beliefs" demonstrates how far the bar has moved and how extreme folks like you are-- and you're the base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wishbone 0 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Texas Tiger, Can you name any conservative policies that have been put into place by Bush and the neo-cons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,557 Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Texas Tiger,Can you name any conservative policies that have been put into place by Bush and the neo-cons? 194055[/snapback] Actually, if you look back on my posts, I've made the point that this President has not been "conservative" in the classic sense. Yet, self-named "conservatives" on this board worship the man like he's the second coming-- (Except that Jesus was pretty "librul" ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.