(( ping ))
We voted Republicans in control of EVERYTHING. We shouldn't have to be listing hopeful reasons she'll be OK.
(( ping ))
"Vote for me, and I'll nominate a crony you've never heard of, because I'm a-skeered of Jim Jeffords and Olympia Snowe!"
Nope. Don't recall that.
You have also opened yourself up for a lot of flak, but I'm sure you already knew that! ;p
Because the answer to that illuminates whether or not he can be trusted.
I HOPE you're right...but I didn't want to HOPE. I wanted a court full of Scalias and Thomases.
All I can say about this woman is, if she turns out to be another ginsberg, the Republican Party is going to take a severe beating.
Nobody knows the future, only time will tell who is right and who is tossed out of office.
And use it to prep herself perhaps? This argument is very odd indeed. Because she knew what Bush wanted does not make her qualified in and of itself. Shucks, Ted Kennedy knows what Bush wanted.... (shiver).
2. Harriet Miers may be a very good lawyer (in fact, I'm sure she is) but her familiarity with constitutional law is likely very scant,
And this matters how?
Who is to over-rule her? Familarity with past ruleings only matters when you are are in a position to be overruled by a higher authority.
Besides I point out, this familairity with constitutional law has not stood us in very good stead with the liberal judges on the bench. Maybe someone who actually reads the constitution rather than what some prior liberal judge wrote about it will bring back the intrepetation that its supposed to have?
I mention this as a point of discussion, and have not made up my mind on Meirs yet - waiting for the hearings...
1. Trust Bush
2. Trust Bush
3. Trust Bush
Can we have a reason that doesn't amount to that? Can we use our independent reasoning skills to support this nominee one bit? I sure haven't seen it.
Nicely written Lancey. I share the reservations of most about this woman, but refuse to participate in this public crucifixion before we know more about her or the chicken little nonsense about the conservative movement on the wane.
I guess it's pretty disappointing to know that a noncloseted conservative is not allowed to be on the Supreme Court, but a ACLU head counsel can be on the court 96-3. And even with a sizable Republlican majority in the Senate, the House, and the presidency, Republicans still have to beg for their scraps like Oliver Twist. But even if leftists only have 20% of the country agreeing with them, they operate from a position of power. I guess it is kind of depressing to think, someone who thinks like I do is not allowed to be in this country, but someone who thinks it's very important to defend a bunch of Nazis marching is.
Thanks for trying to cheer us up! :D
(Terrence W. Boyle (Fourth Circuit): Originally nominated 9/4/2001
Janice R. Brown (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 7/25/2003
Richard A. Griffin (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 6/26/2002
Thomas B. Griffith (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 5/10/2004
Brett M. Kavanaugh (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 7/25/2003
David W. McKeague (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001
William G. Myers (Ninth Circuit): Originally nominated 5/15/2003
Susan B. Neilson (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001
Priscilla R. Owen (Fifth Circuit): Originally nominated 9/4/2001
William H. Pryor (Eleventh Circuit): Originally nominated 4/9/2003
Henry W. Saad (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001)
Since then, the President has placed one additional name into nomination, on September 29, 2005 (James Hardy Payne to the 10th Circuit in Oklahoma.
As to point 2, there is more secondhand evidence that she's a mediocre lawyer than there is secondhand evidence that she's a good one. Conservative lawyers involved in briefing her for the position as Counsel to the President quickly became disillusioned as to her competence and recommended finding a strong deputy counsel. Chief of Staff Andy Card was of the same opinion and again, secondhand evidence suggests he is the primary force involved in getting her promoted, since he can't fire her because she's protected by the President and First Lady. By promoting her, he gets to try and hire someone competent to replace her. (Admittedly, this is secondhand evidence and could be completely wrong....but it's also only second and third hand evidence that we've been given in support of her...and a significant proportion of that comes from someone who turns out to be her lover.)
As to point 3, I can very easily imagine just what you propose. That is why actually having a judicial philosophy is so important since it grounds the way in which you interpret the Constitution. The way you've portrayed Harriet Miers (and the way she's been portrayed in all of the 2nd and 3rd person accounts we've all read) she supposedly adores the President. It also means she's malleable. She is influenced by the people with whom she associates. We don't need another follower on the Court. The President will be gone from Washington in 3 years. After that, his influence on her will be minimal. Who fills that void? Given the culture in Washington, it's nearly a given she will drift quickly to the left. It's almost exactly what happened with Sandra Day O'Connor. She was reasonably conservative....until Reagan left office.....then she began her drift to lala land, picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution she likes and those that she doesn't (which again, is what happens when your interpretation of the Constitution isn't grounded in a firm philosophy).