Posted on 10/20/2005 11:19:05 AM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1506135/posts?page=1
The Miers Support Team: Gloomy and Demoralized [Byron York]
"Peter Principle on steroids is at work here."
LOL! oy veh, you are right!
When Arlen Sphincter and Pat Leahy are complaining, I view it as a positive.
You know that decisions used to be written pretty succintly? Real short 5 pagers. Now they go on past 100 pages of total nonsense. So none of this bothers me at all.
And futhermore, liberals today see tons of things that are not in the Constitution, like the right to sodomy. Now how is tht worse than Miers?
Yes, and IIRC, the commotion that happened when this was learned is what sunk her nomination to the Assistant AG for civil rights position.
Great post, btw.
The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court. In fact it does not even specify citizenship or age as it does for the executive and legislative branches. However, Presidents normally nominate individuals who have prior legal experience. Typically, most nominees have judicial experience, either at the federal or state level. Several nominees have formerly served on federal Courts of Appeals, especially the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Another source of Supreme Court nominees is the federal executive branch—in particular, the Department of Justice. Other potential nominees include members of Congress and academics. On the current Supreme Court, seven Justices previously served on federal courts (including three on the D.C. Circuit); two served on state courts; three were former law school professors; and three held full time positions in the federal executive branch.
Nominees to the Supreme Court, as well as to lower federal courts, are evaluated by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary. The panel is composed of fifteen federal judges (but not Supreme Court Justices), including at least one from each federal judicial circuit. The body assesses the nominee "solely to professional qualifications: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament," and offers a rating of "well qualified," "qualified," or "not qualified." The opinions of the committee bind neither the President nor the Senate; however, they are generally taken into account.
That's exACTLY what being 'President' means!!!
OOps!
From Wikipedia
This is the elephant in the living room. It really doesn't matter who he puts up there, changing the personalities on the court is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The Court itself needs to be abolished and redefined. If only there was the political will to do it. If it's going to retain this ungodly power of judicial review then the members need to be elected in four year terms, nationally like the President, since they have almost as much power as the President, with the same two term limit. That MIGHT fix the problem to some extent. But really it needs to lose the power of judiicial review.
Yeah, like when Linda Chavez wrote a column yesterday and it only took two or three posts for someone to write "Linda Chavez is nothing but a pain in the neck."
All along this discussion I have noted that many oppose her because they didn't know anything about her. Some say they know by what she's said. What did she say? She has said she will follow the constitution, as did all the other judges now on the bench. If all the judges have promised to do that, why are we now suffering from an activist court?
My point is, absent disqualification for cause, ie. murder, why are we any more critical of President Bush's choice because WE DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HER? Why not give President Bush the benefit of the doubt as he deserves from us. I know, but what about Federal Spending, what about NCLB, what about this or that? What about it? It has nothing to do with the President's sole selection of a Supreme Cout justice.
The insults to the base started with the "jobs Americans won't do" line repeated ad nauseum, and have continued to where our voices are now "background chatter."
Thank You. My point exactly. If Specter (of Scottish Law) and Leahy are upset with Miers, that has elevated her in my estimation.
We do not believe she was the "chief vetter". She was on the committee. We have a feeling she didn't have a lot of input on the committee either. We think the VP did most of the vetting. We are not going to go so far as to say her job was to get coffee and donuts, but We think you catch our line of thinking.
We are concerned that much of the promotion from within the BA comes about as a result of who is able to apple polish best for the President. This is not good.
If this woman cries in the committee hearing, the nomination will be lost. There is no crying in Senatorial Hearings.
I'm with you..it's bad enough that all the talking
oddballs buzz about this, day in and day out..get
the damn thing moving..one way or the other..let
Specter and the other bleeding heart, baby killers
slice her up....and throw her to the media meat
heads..then put up the lady Judge from California, Brown,
and then the racists will manipulate that for all it's
worth...we need a black, conservative, lady on the
court...Thomas looks lonely....Jake
You say it is just dandy that George Bush thumbs his nose at the very people who put him in office, pick an unqualified crony for the most important pick of our lifetime, and cause a rift in the conservatives--
you think this is fine just because he is president? The president serves the people, not the other way around.
This is how Hitler came into power. They cheered him on no matter what he did. Different scenarios for sure but same theme.
You are no conservative if you are not outraged about what Bush is doing to the conservative movement and his destruction of our national sovereignty through open invasion to our south and to his fiscal insanity, on top of this Miers lunacy.
I haven't read this thread yet so I apologize if this is repetitive, but I am just so ..... angry, actually.
I don't know if I can ever forgive those who launched the vicious attacks on this woman and the president. No, I've never thought Miers was "the most" qualified potential nominee (as far as I'm concerned, though, that could be said about any nominee). But I cannot imagine what it is like to try to go senator to senator and impress people when you are under constant attack and ridicule and don't even have the support of the people on your OWN SIDE.
I feel zero pride in being associated with the views expressed by Coulter, Frum, et al. And I hope that new voices -- respectable, adult voices -- will emerge from this shameful epidsode (the shame is the "pundits'," not Miers' or the president's) to speak for the rest of the conservatives in this country.
"The Bush bots will say, "aha, he's just trying to embarrass her.""
Whatever. But I'm guessing that at least two of the CURRENT Supreme Court justices couldn't have handled this subject adroitly under deadline.
"By putting conservatives in quotes are you attempting to say such people are not really conservative? In what way? Because they disagree with President Bush?"
This wasn't addressed to me, but I'll take the liberty of responding anyway. The answer to the last two questions is: because they are tyrannical.
"George Bush thumbs his nose at the very people who put him in office"
I really wish you would quit saying this. He couldn't have gotten elected with you alone.
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.