Posted on 10/04/2005 3:35:22 PM PDT by maximusaurelius
3) unless Miers demonstrates in her hearing that she has "hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role," the Senate has a duty to reject the nomination to prevent this or any other president "from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends"; 4) the Miers nomination vindicates the principle of tokenism under the rubric of diversity; writes Will, "for this we need a conservative president?"
(Excerpt) Read more at citizenjournal.com ...
BTW - Chief Justice William Rehnquist was never a Judge before he became a Justice. Think about that.
That's quoting just a little bit out of context, don't you think?
You can only trust them by watching what they do and say. I've watched Dick Cheney for years. I've worked under Rumsfeld for years. I've listened to Condi Rice and watched her handle the State Department. I've watched Bolton move into the UN and start cleaning house. I liked what I heard during Robert's hearings. I trust them based on experience. They are people who know their jobs, and people who perform as advertised. In my mind, that reflects well on his ability to select people for high positions.
That's ridiculous. Just about any of the 20 or so judges talked about for the last year would have been fine. There was a time once on FR where there was a minority that hated Bush. After 5 years of him being the biggest spending president ever, it is now you Bushites that are the minority here. There is no a single judicial pick that Bush could have made that you would have criticized.
If one wants to know whether or not to truat Bush on judicial nominations we have only to look at his nominations and confirmations to the appellate courts. How anybody could examine those and question Bush's commitment to nominating jurists who will not legislate from the bench is beyond me.
Right, so he lied? I believe Bush felt that of the slate he was looking into, that she was the best woman. We will have another pick coming for another one soon enough, and he will have a broader slate on that pick. This one was going to be a woman.
Having read the entire column, my reaction is: OUCH!
Do you even give the slightest thought to how foolish you're sounding before you type? The conservative reaction to this has been unprecedented for his presidency. Defend her if you want, but nonsensical statements like that makes you look like the unreasonable one.
Assuming arguendo that this pick had to be a woman(and to do so smacks of tokenism), do you honestly believe that she is the most qualified woman? Second, why should anyone assume that W is going to get another pick? C'mon.
Not really. Though if that's how he thinks the lists are put out, why isn't the reason that Harriet Miers popped up on it a couple times because the editors thought all the other lawyers who really belonged on it were too hot and they needed to throw a bone to some of the less hot ones like dear old Harriet?
I can't link
http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComunicados.asp?nid=105384&src=0
Here are the pertainent quotes:
"[In 1997] She Was Named To The [National Law Journal's] List Of 100 Most Powerful Attorneys." ("50 Top Women Lawyers," The National Law Journal, 3/30/98)
"[Miers] Received A Distinguished Alumni Award From The SMU Law School In 1997." (SMU Website, www.smu.edu, Accessed 9/29/05)
In 1998, National Law Journal Named Harriet Miers One Of The Fifty Most Influential Women Lawyers In America. ("50 Top Women Lawyers," The National Law Journal, 3/30/98)
In 2000, National Law Journal Named Harriet Miers One Of The One Hundred Most Influential Lawyers In America. ("The Most Influential Lawyers In America," The National Law Journal, 6/12/00)
Not true, I would have fought a Brown pick after seeing her in committee. I would screamed if it had been Estrada.
I may well be a minority view here, I don't know, cuz I yanked my support months ago and don't hang out here much anylonger. I bugged out before the Turkey's did....LOL!
Far as I am concerned, the fingers have it now and I am not a fringer.
Just came back for the court battles and to agravate a few people.
Guess I'm doin good!
One SCOTUS justice is worth a hundred lower court judges. Why is it that he used up his most conservative picks on the lower courts, where they're tightly bound by what SCOTUS has already said, and anything beyond that can at any time be overturned by the same? That's to say nothing of the fact that when his strongest nominees were being filibustered, he never went to bat for any of them, except towards the end when he finally made some weak pleas to let the full Senate vote on them.
Those nominees to the appellate courts had judicial records and many, like Estrada, were exposed to great ridicule for their outspoken conservatism. Harriet has kept her outstanding conservative beliefs hidden to everyone but the POTUS and she gets tapped for the high court. And you ask why we have a hard time trusting him on this one?
Why's that? What did you see that troubled you?
Easy. He was up for re-election then. He's not now. Where's the accountability? Seriously, where is it? Do I trust him? Two words Hell bleeping NO! What's the old expression? Trust but verify. Well that's what the Senate ought to do: verify. But instead, so-called conservatives have decided that the president should get WHOMEVER he picks, no questions asked. Horsefeathers.
She looks like a great resume for a nominee for president elect of the American Bar Association. Please, Harriet's probably a nice lady but she is not the most qualified nominee for SCOTUS.
Actually, politics and not tokenism. I believe that Bush believes she is. I therefore voted for her when I voted for Bush. But I don't know her, so I take it on faith that she is what he says she is. I don't know any of them. But I can't fault Bush's judgement on most things. He picks, I ride in the back and observe. If he says she's solid, then she's solid.
I can understand you aggravation. But, what you are seeing is the support on this nominee imploding.
Harriet Miers: GWB's latest faith-based initiative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.