Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Miers -- One View
Myself | 10/09/2005 | Wisconsin

Posted on 10/09/2005 9:24:32 AM PDT by Wisconsin

I am a retired lawyer. I have argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, two of which are usually at least footnotes in most Constitutional Law texts.

I do not want a "great" Supreme Court Justice. I want a "great" Supreme Court. No single justice decides a case before the Court, the Court as a whole does.

.....


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: miers; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-125 next last
To: Torie

Thanks.

Will read with great interest.


81 posted on 10/09/2005 1:28:33 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

Well, as far as I can see, neither has the guy who posted this thread, yet here you are, complimenting him and whining because Miers hasn't done just this.

By not even allowing for the fact that SHE cannot speak out now, you're showing your agenda.


82 posted on 10/09/2005 1:30:37 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
By not even allowing for the fact that SHE cannot speak out now, you're showing your agenda.

So what was keeping her from speaking out a week ago, or a month ago, or 40 years ago? It is getting to the point where her literacy is a presumption.
83 posted on 10/09/2005 1:36:25 PM PDT by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
SHE cannot speak out now

Nothing is stopping DeLay. What is stopping her?

84 posted on 10/09/2005 1:37:28 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
What would be the purpose (unless you're a Clinton or a Kennedy) of speaking about something that everyone agrees was a bad decision? I don't see an upside to wasting political capital where it's not needed.

How do waste political capital by pointing to something that everyone believes is wrong, and promising to appoint justices to the Supreme court who will endevour to reverse and prevent such a miscarriage of justice?
85 posted on 10/09/2005 1:39:58 PM PDT by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Wisconsin
You have given the best defense of Bush's selection of Miers that I have read. But then again, your competition is not all that steep.

I do think you have a very valid point regarding Miers' fabled attention and dedication to detail. But this is not an entirely uncommon trait in a competent professional, and I really have to wonder if that alone is quite good enough, considering her complete lack of Constitutional scholarship.

I can see why Bush would want her as his secretary, and perhaps Chief Justice Roberts could benefit from her service as a law clerk.

However, there seems to be one glaring detail Miers overlooked in not dissuading the President from nominating her. As someone who has been instrumental in crafting many of the policies not in effect in the War on Terrorism, she would have to recuse herself from ruling on them as a matter of conflict of interest. Also, it seems she has overlooked the small detail that Kennedy, Durbin, Biden, Leahy, and Schumer are all going to use her confirmation hearing to attack the Bush administrations policies and demand sensitive and potentially embarrassing internal White House documents.
86 posted on 10/09/2005 1:41:14 PM PDT by counterpunch (Save the GOP - withdraw Miers now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie

# Robinson v. Texas Automobile Dealers Association, 214 F.R.D. 432 (E.D. TX, 2003) (pdf)
# Robinson v. Texas Automobile Dealers Association, 2003-2 Trade Cases (CCH) P 74,077 (E.D. TX, 2003) (pdf)
# Robinson v. Texas Automobile Dealers Association, 2003-2 Trade Cases (CCH) P 74,075 (E.D. TX, 2003) (pdf)

Represented some members of trade association with other attornies and lost challenges her challenges to Attorney client privelege, class certification and lost summary judgment on Sherman Act for price fixing.


87 posted on 10/09/2005 1:41:20 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

Her most complex case allegedly were Disney v. Esprit and the Microsoft case. It would be interesting to read her briefs in those cases, and find out whether she wrote them herself.


88 posted on 10/09/2005 1:44:51 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
"The only ideology that matters is strict construction of the Constitutìon. All the great intellectual reasoning in the world is wrong and deadly to our republic if it starts from or has to refer to Mobutu vs. Tshombe as decided by the Congolese Maximum High Court or rationally finds penumbras and implications in nuances of emanations."

Nicely put!

89 posted on 10/09/2005 1:45:52 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man; Wisconsin
Not on the issue of abortion rights. The SC hasn't lacked clarity on the abortion issue since RoevWade was decided. By all standards, the worst decision by any SC since the inception of the Republic. 45 million potential lives snuffed out because so many people have no respect for human life.

Never make an emotional argument in a legal arena.
The appropriate response to Roe v. Wade is simply "They got the law wrong." Nothing more.
90 posted on 10/09/2005 1:47:45 PM PDT by counterpunch (Save the GOP - withdraw Miers now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, 914 S.W. 2d 602 (Ct. App. TX, 1995) (pdf)

Representing Microsoft MS Miers lost appeal of a class action suit that microsoft lost for selling defective software MS DOS 6.0, and then charging for the upgraded version MS DOS 6.2, which should have been supplied to previous purchasers for free under breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Magnuson--Moss Warranty----Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 2301

91 posted on 10/09/2005 1:50:26 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch
You have given the best defense of Bush's selection of Miers that I have read. But then again, your competition is not all that steep.

You and I disagree on this, but thanks for having the presence of mind, intelligence and cahones to address the author of the post, unlike many FReepers. Regards.

92 posted on 10/09/2005 1:51:12 PM PDT by ScreamingFist (Peace through Stupidity. NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Microsoft case

just sumarized the decision. She lost the appeal and the case was a loser to start. I know, she is just representing her client, but still.

93 posted on 10/09/2005 1:51:50 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Wisconsin
Note: I am resubmitting this for the sake of clarity since I accidentally wrote "not" instead of "now" when I said "As someone who has been instrumental in crafting many of the policies now in effect in the War on Terrorism". This changes the meaning significantly.

You have given the best defense of Bush's selection of Miers that I have read. But then again, your competition is not all that steep.

I do think you have a very valid point regarding Miers' fabled attention and dedication to detail. But this is not an entirely uncommon trait in a competent professional, and I really have to wonder if that alone is quite good enough, considering her complete lack of Constitutional scholarship.

I can see why Bush would want her as his secretary, and perhaps Chief Justice Roberts could benefit from her service as a law clerk.

However, there seems to be one glaring detail Miers overlooked in not dissuading the President from nominating her. As someone who has been instrumental in crafting many of the policies now in effect in the War on Terrorism, she would have to recuse herself from ruling on them as a matter of conflict of interest. Also, it seems she has overlooked the small detail that Kennedy, Durbin, Biden, Leahy, and Schumer are all going to use her confirmation hearing to attack the Bush administrations policies and demand sensitive and potentially embarrassing internal White House documents.
94 posted on 10/09/2005 1:54:35 PM PDT by counterpunch (Save the GOP - withdraw Miers now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wisconsin

"In my opinion the present Court has two great failings."

Thanks for pointing out these failings and thank you for your post.


95 posted on 10/09/2005 1:54:35 PM PDT by Ninian Dryhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
One of her fluff pieces "Our Number One Priority ...," 56 Texas Bar J. 106 (1993) (pdf)

Discusses processes to improve the State Bar Association Greivance procedure. Article rambles and not sure what the point is, but the Bar Asssociation installed toll free phone lines so that members of the public can get phone information on the grievance process. A proactive approach to dealing with cases against attorneys resulting from substance abuse.

We heard she was a process person. This article spells it out in spades.

96 posted on 10/09/2005 1:57:19 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

Are you serious, or just playing dumb on FR for kicks?

Supreme Court justices do NOT speak out on ANYTHING until their hearings.

Of course, you know that, so I can only conclude you're playing games.


97 posted on 10/09/2005 1:58:11 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA

Only to you, pal.


98 posted on 10/09/2005 1:58:53 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Wisconsin

Thank you for weighing in.

Gee, my Packers win 52-3, and now someone named "Wisconsin" posts this...it's a good day!


99 posted on 10/09/2005 2:01:17 PM PDT by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (I have an FR stalker, folks. He's already driven one woman off of FR...going for two, I guess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Esprit Finance, Inc., 981 S.W. 2d 25 (Ct. App. TX, 1998) (pdf)

Ms Meiers successfully represented Disney who was sued in Texas for the actions of a third party, lost and appealed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the State of Texas. Issue was that the third party was not an agent of Disney and so no personal jurisdiction existed over Disney.

I leave it for you to decide whether this is really a complex issue, the issues of common law agency being pretty well settled law.

100 posted on 10/09/2005 2:08:09 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-125 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson