Posted on 10/07/2005 3:50:01 PM PDT by Sam Hill
Her judicial philosophy is a complete unknown and her life shows ideological inconsistency. There is so little information out there about her that our primary objective source for knowledge of her belief is the record of campaign donations. The White House line is "trust me" (a completely subjective appeal) and it provides no information even though the timing and the selection were chosen there.
There are a raft of issues and previous nominees with which "trust me" got us screwed. Given the importance of the post, that's not good enough.
When I look in the Constitution for requirements for Supreme Court Justice, I don't see any of those things you list. Could you point them out to me? I am, after all, a legal dope.
I was under the ridiculous impression (silly me) that the President could pick the person HE thought was most qualified, and the Senate could accept or reject his pick.
Nor does the fact that I voted for George W. Bush three consecutive times mean that my statements carry any more-or less-weight than someone hasn't voted for him once.
We're all American citizens, and we're all entitled to express our opinions to OUR United States Senate.
A legislative body whose members serve at our pleasure.
Torie, he comes home almost every night with stories of some perfidious client or another, so I would guess his experience mirrors yours. His biggest gripes are the bankruptcy clients--they run up huge credit card debts, buying all kinds of stuff they don't really need--and then complain if they make too much money for a Chapter 7 and have to pay some, some, as little as 25 cents on the dollar, back over a few years in a Chap 13. And a great deal of the time they lie to him about their assets--one of the stupidest things to do is lie to your lawyer!
Whew! I think I've internalized some of his indignation! Thanks again for the ranting opportunity.
We won't get to see her internal memos to him as his counsel, because those documents are obviously privileged to the Executive Branch, and privileged as lawyer-client communications. And we can be equally confident that Senators Schumer and Kennedy will cry crocodile tears over the lack of access to that (and other) memos.
Now, the results show that Bush and Miers were both DEAD WRONG in concluding that the SC would obey the First Amendment and strike that law down. (I was also DEAD WRONG in asserting the same thing, here on FR, repeatedly.)
But that does mean that Miers as a Justice would vote against CFR, not for it, when (not if) that issue reaches the Court again.
BTW, I was so disgusted with the Court's 5-4 decision upholding the CFR that I resigned my membership in the Court's bar, and then wrote an article attacking the Court for violating the First Amendment and their oaths of office. "To the Supreme Court: I Quit!" posted here on FR.
So, on this particular issue, Miers will obviously be better than O'Connor, etc.
Congressman Billybob
Can we cut it with this conversation-stopping "Bushbot" epithet? There are good points raised on both sides of the Miers divide among conservatives. Can we discuss these rationally without the smug name-calling and ad hominem attacks?
You could instead interpret the poll results that the majority of freepers (nearly 62%) who responded to the poll either do not support the Miers nomination, or are waiting for more info - rather than the more positive way you chose to interpret it. That's a lot of freepers not quite towing the party line at this point.
I don't care what school he went to. The quality of his judgement has few peers.
Bush picked her for the job. We will see how she comports herself in the hearings. She at least deserves a shot in the hearings, would you not agree?
If she bombs, I will join you in calling for her to be defeated.
Careful now. You are describing a man widely regarded as a stealth candidate. A man immediately dismissed by some conservative pundits as a poor choice and an unknown entity.
"Miers is doubt city, but of course, she deserves a fair hearing, and a chance to show she is up to the job."
Well God bless you. Seriously. If more people shared your wise approach we'd have far fewer people insisting the conservative movement is dead.
The disparity between the poll numbers for Roberts-in the immediate aftermath of his nomination to the Court-and those for Miers is very telling.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Selected by exactly who? A magazine/journal comprised of who? To me, it says that she was very well connected, not a hell of a lot more. And it certainly tells us nothing about her judicial philosophy.
Who decides what a constitutional scholar is? And why should a constitutional scholar sit on the Supreme Court?
Is that a qualification for the court? I think not.
LOL, I am sure the "brave" Senators on the right will destroy her fairly!
Whether or not you feel that Rogers-Brown, or Alito, or Batchelder, or any of the other individuals that could potentially have been chosen by President Bush was confirmable-and we'll have to agree to disagree on this point-I don't think anyone here would have seriously suggested that these jurists would not acquit themselves well in any theoretical Senate confirmation hearings.
Yes. The law is complicated. But the Constitution is simple.
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.