Posted on 10/05/2005 4:03:47 PM PDT by perfect stranger
That is fine, but in the atmosphere of the Senate today, a complete conservative paper trail would be the kiss of death. We can count on the Senate not being able to confirm a known strong conservative.
This is the elegance of GW's nomination.
That's a good question. I suspect that after Roberts, they really want to avoid a fight. If the President had nominated one of the justices they had already filibustered, they would have to do so again...prompting the Republicans to remove the filibuster option on judicial nominees.
Meanwhile, the President gets a nominee that he knows will be a Conservative voice on the SC. What are we complaining about???
Meaning she is an ex-lawyer.
The president proactively determines the qualifications of judicial nominees. The senate reactively votes to confirm or not to confirm.
Constitutionally speaking, a nominee for the Supreme Court doesn't even have to be a lawyer, or a citizen of the country, let alone be a graduate of any law school deemed by the Ann Coulters of the world to be acceptable.
The Constitution of the United States -- the articles, sections and clauses pertaining to the judiciary:Article. II.
Section. 2.
Clause 2: He [the president] shall ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law...Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Isn't he the guy who wrote a book?
Meaning she is an ex-lawyer.
Was Scalia's reasoning sound?
Left or Right, I want a Justice who thinks. Thinking invites surprises.
-- "Coulter-vibrators"?--
And the personal attacks continue.
Dazzle me with your wisdom. Tell me what possible rationale there is to propose Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court compared to the other actually qualified people? I know....it requires you to actually think so I won't be holding my breath. Even the President couldn't come up with any actual reasons during his press conference the other day. The man has just peed on the conservative base that put him into office. We now will demonstrate to him the loyalty that he has shown to us.
The nominee has considerable legal experience. Perhaps it is not to the satisfaction of some who would prefer a kangaroo court to a Supreme Court, but it is to the satisfaction of a President who is truly concerned about the life and destiny of the people whom he serves.
There is no elegance at all to this nomination.
Yes, everyone that I've heard from Texas, who has worked with her, has said the same thing. Kay Baily Hutichson are John Cornyn are two.
It's those who don't know her who are making erroneous assumptions. Some of these pundits had better start backpedaling fast. Or I fear they will all look as foolish as Ann.
I don't think asking questions-especially when dealing with an issue of such great import-is necessarily a bad thing.
It's comforting that Ken Starr is disposed favorably towards her, but I don't see why that means we should foreclose debate on this subject.
See you partaketh in what you accuse me of, how quiant.
I defend the President in this only because I am forced to by the closed minded individuals who cannot wait for facts and wish to partake in Political S&M.
I usually like Ann a lot, but her sneer at SMU Law School is over the top. I, too, went to a lesser known law school. I have, however, worked with over 30 top tier graduates of the so-called elite law schools. My legal education has allowed me to hold my own with all of them. Ann can criticize President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers on a lot of grounds, but this isn't one of them, IMHO.
If you can not debate the issues. Please keep the personal attack to yourself.
Not that you see.
Care to explain that brainless little comment is just a bit more detail?
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.