Why Harriet Meirs should NOT be confirmed

StandardDeviation

[StandardDeviation]

I've thought about it for the past couple of days, and here is why I think Ms. Meirs should NOT be confirmed. I'll take this from the stand of both Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats cannot vote for Meirs because above all things, she is a Bush crony. She could be a legacy of the Bush Administration that would haunt you for years. She thinks that W is one of the most intelligent men on Earth. Bush/Cheney will likely have her ear even after they have left the White House. A vote for her is a vote for the continued influence of the Bush Administration well past the end of his second term.

Republicans cannot vote for Meirs because she is an unknown. She was very likely picked as a big FU to your Senate leadership when they warned Bush against picking his other friend, Alberto Gonzales. You've been presented a once in a generation chance to replace a swing voter with a true conservative, but you have no solid reason to know that she will be. You might end up getting another swing voter to replace the one that is leaving the court. Sure, Bush says she shares his philosophy of strict constructionism, but given Bush's record, can you honestly say that is a philosophy that HE truly beleives in?

[txrangerette]

Put a sock in it. If it looks, walks and quacks like insanity, it is.

[The_Victor]

Oh goody, another "Miers and Bush suck" vanity....

[xsmommy]

wow, glad you finally decided. so many of us were waiting to hear how you were going to come down on this to make up our own minds about the nomination.

[dirtboy]

Sure, Bush says she shares his philosophy of strict constructionism, but given Bush's record, can you honestly say that is a philosophy that HE truly beleives in?

Yeah, and that's why he refuses to nominate judges such as Janice Rogers Brown to the federal bench.

Wait a minute, he did.

You've been presented a once in a generation chance to replace a swing voter with a true conservative, but you have no solid reason to know that she will be.

Dude, Bush has worked closely with Miers for years. She has helped screen judges such as JRB. And you think he doesn't know her friggin' temperment by now, as opposed to a judge that he has never worked with? What a pantload.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Personally, I'll trust Bush on his picks. I was pretty happy with Roberts, so I have no reason to be unhappy with Meirs hat this time.

Odd how you posted this back on 10/3.

[TBP]

I am inclined ot agree with you. We hvae no idea what Miers' judicial philosophy will be. She could be a Scalia or a Souter. There were so many proven entities out there, and President Bush picks her.

I hope she turns out to be solid. But after all these years of work, all this money and effort, we shouldn't have to hope.

[eleni121]

She is not an unknown to the President.

I have faith in his wise choices.

[RockinRight]

I will say that all of W's other court appointees have been solid. So MAYBE Miers will be OK.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

"Look at me, look at me. I'm posting a vanity and my name is in lights!"

Has Bush ever lied to you? When he ran for President he said he would nominate strict constructionists to the bench. Do you think he would nominate another Souter?

Your vanity post has no facts, just speculation, ad-hominem attacks, and opinions similiar to standard Democratic Party talking points.

[syriacus]

The hearings could be more fun than I thought.

[StandardDeviation]

Yes, I did post that, thought about it, and changed my mind. "[H]At that time" (stupid typo), I had no reason to be unhappy. Now I've decided that he could do much better with this pick.

I take in the information and let my opinions evolve.

[StandardDeviation]

Where did I use the word "suck"?

I never said they sucked. I said that in my opinion she wasn't the right person for the job and gave reasons why senators on BOTH sides of the aisle should oppose her.

[StandardDeviation]

"Put a sock in it. If it looks, walks and quacks like insanity, it is."

Thanks for contributing something meaningful to the discussion.

[1rudeboy]

Bush nominated a replacement for O-Connor? Already?

[Niteranger68]

A few paraphrased quotes uttered during the Roberts confirmation should be revisited here:

"The President won the election, so he picks the judges."

"How can we confirm him when we know nothing about him?"

Some of us have abandoned the first quote and adopted the second. Suckers!!!

[StandardDeviation]

"Look at me, look at me. I'm posting a vanity and my name is in lights!"

What do you expect on the Personal boards. I gave my PERSONAL opinion. Duh!

"Has Bush ever lied to you? When he ran for President he said he would nominate strict constructionists to the bench. Do you think he would nominate another Souter?"

The possibility of openings on the SCOTUS is the ONLY reason I voted for Bush in '04. Other than that, I thought his first term left a lot to be desired. Roberts was a good pick IMO, but I have no facts to support the notion that Meirs will be other than our President saying "Trust me."

"Your vanity post has no facts, just speculation, ad-hominem attacks, and opinions similar to standard Democratic Party talking points"

If it is, then apparently we are in agreement on this issue. I would not consider it an impossibility and did not think such was not allowed here.

[StandardDeviation]

"How can we confirm him when we know nothing about him?"

That was the Democrat talking point right there. We had plenty of information regarding Roberts. They knew he was a conservative and they wanted to slip him up so that they could label him too extreme to confirm. Harriet Meirs may very well be too mediocre to confirm.

Why bother giving the Senate "advise and consent" powers if they are just supposed to rubber-stamp the President's nominations?

The hearings are the interview process. If the interviewers aren't impressed, then the candidate should not get the job.

[Niteranger68]

Why bother giving the Senate "advise and consent" powers if they are just supposed to rubber-stamp the President's nominations?

Another DNC talking point.......

[StandardDeviation]

"I will say that all of W's other court appointees have been solid. So MAYBE Miers will be OK."

The MAYBE is what is wrong with this picture. There were candidates whom we KNOW would be not just OK, but great. They weren't picked. My opinion is the Senate Republicans should reject until one of those known conservatives is picked.