Posted on 10/22/2005 4:11:56 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Though not giving it much more than 'rumor' treatment, on Fox & Friends Weekend it was just reported that the White House is reaching out to GOP senators as to their recommendations for 'Plan B' in the event Miers is withdrawn.
One of the F&F hosts clarifed that according to the information Fox has received, it is not WH aides who are doing the outreach directly, but conservative surrogates.
America deserves better than a leader that might make one decision while actually beliving otherwise. We are who we are and it comes out. I'm tired of the baby killing. If he's pro-abortion I can't support him.
It's the ONLY way to manage. May peace be with you... Brother Dude.
"If Miers isn't qualified, neither are you and you have no right to complain about any SC decision."http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php
You ought to run for office. Your qualifications and ability to mount compelling arguments exceed those of most sitting Senators.
Oh great. Now we are going to governed by the lowest common moron. Mediocracy cries out for equal representation. (SARCASM INTENDED). Don't let me hear a word about affirmative action or you will be a hypocrite.
No, you have full right to criticize it. Most Americans just dont want morons to decide it for them. Too often it seems that way now. Add a few morons to the court without any understanding of the law and a few religious wingnuts and there will be nothing left to criticize. Our country will cease to exist. The courts will become super legislatures run by Ayatollahs Dobson and Robertson.
And which case law? There are hundreds of thousands of cases in the US. Do we take the good ones or the bad ones? Are 9th circuit cases OK, or do we throw them out in favor of the wisdom of Judge Greer?
So you agree? You are a moron. 9th circuit cases dont have any precedent value anywhere except in the 9th circuit and those cases usually get reviewed very quickly by the SCOTUS because the 9th circuit usually gets it wrong.
And overturned....I believe about 90% of the time.
The case that most use to illuminate that inquiry is a Texas Supreme Court case called "Doe I."
http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/tx/2000_6txsc.html
TX Supreme Court 00-0224
Gonzales Concurring Opinion
Enoch & Baker Concurring Opinion
Abbott Dissenting Opinion
Hecht Dissenting Opinion
Owen Dissenting Opinion
The links below are to the Texas Supreme Court case archives for this case and related cases, and provide ZIP files. The archived year 2000 cases consist exclusively of WordPerfect renditions of the opinions. The archived year 2002 link include html and pdf renditions, in addition to WordPerfect.
The Legislature directed trial courts to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Tex. Fam. Code § 33.003(h). The trial court in this case did so. Under well-established precedent, a reviewing court must presume that the trial court's judgment in this case is supported not only by its express finding that Doe was not sufficiently well informed, but also by its implied finding that Doe was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion without notification of a parent. Doe had the burden of establishing both elements of that ground fro proceeding with an abortion without notification. Nothing in the Family Code indicates that the Legislature intended to override the appellate principle that an omitted finding on one ground for relief will be presumed to support the judgment.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/texasstatecases/sc/000224d3.htm
Often a court construing a statute wishes that it had more information about what the Legislature intended. Since issuing its first opinions construing the Parental Notification Act, this Court has received extraordinary assistance from Members of the Legislature in reviewing the history of the statute. The Senate and House sponsors of the legislation, together with eight other senators and forty-six other representatives, have informed the Court as amici curiae that its construction of the statute to date is incorrect, and they have provided citations to the hearings and debates on the statute to support their view. While the Court is certainly not bound by the post-enactment views of legislators, the Court is wrong to simply dismiss the parts of the legislative record that these legislators have cited in support of their position. Relying instead on a few minor, isolated comments it can find in the legislative history to support its own view, and disregarding significant portions of that record to the contrary, the Court dares the Legislature: If we have not got the statute's meaning right, then amend it. "This," says the Court, "is precisely how the separation of powers doctrine should work."http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/texasstatecases/sc/000224d2.htm
One can safely assume the George Bush's political rhetoric has been fairly steady regarding the proper function of judges in our government. If George Bush considers Gonzales to be a strict constructionist, that should give an open-minded thinking person reason for closer scrutiny of the Miers pick too.
I see Gonzales as a judicial activist. The excerpts above illuminate how I reach that conclusion. He and Owen were on opposite sides of the parental notification case in Texas. Tha case is a clear window on the interpretation of "strict constructionist." Either Owen is a strict constuctionsit, or Gonzales is, but it is not logical that they both be.
The sophists will argue that the court let the law stand, no legislation from the bench. Or that the court didn't strike down the law, so there was no judicial activism. I say read the case and draw your own conclusion. By the sophists definition, the Florida Supreme Court was not activist in the 2000 election. But in fact, it was. And so was the Texas Supreme Court in parental notification. IMO.
Much Ado About the 9th Circuit
According to constitutional law expert Akhil Reed Amar, writing in FindLaw: "In each of the past six years, the Ninth Circuit averaged between 1.5 and 2.5 [Supreme Court] Justice-votes per case [it reviewed]," writes Amar. "Indeed, when the Ninth Circuit is reversed, it is more often than not reversed unanimously!"Amar points out that the opinions written by 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who joined Judge Alfred Goodwin in the 2-1 majority Pledge decision, have "alone been reversed by the Supreme Court unanimously an unbelievable five times in a single Term."
Others who follow the 9th Circuit closely argue that the court’s reversal rate this Supreme Court Term was actually an improvement on prior years. In 1997, the High Court took up 28 cases from the 9th Circuit and reversed 27 of them -- nearly two-thirds of which were unanimous opinions. Part of the "improvement" may be attributed to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who several years ago urged the 9th Circuit to better its track record by reviewing more of its own cases with its 11-judge en banc panel.
and see:
Media Matters - Most Selective "Watchdog" (12/24/2004)
Of the 79 cases the Supreme Court decided this past term through published opinions, 68 arose from the federal appellate courts, two from the federal district courts, and nine from state courts. The court reversed or vacated the judgment of the lower court in 59 of these cases. Specifically, the justices overturned 54 of the 68 judgments arising from the federal appellate courts (or 79%), zero of the two judgments coming from the federal district courts (or 0%), and six of the nine judgments issued originally by state courts (or 67%).Notably, 9th Circuit rulings constituted about 32 percent of both the cases (25 of 79) and the reversals (19 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by written slip opinions this term.
In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for nearly half (43%, or 10 of 23) of the High Court's unanimous reversals that were issued through published opinions. Thus, on the whole, 9th Circuit rulings accounted for three times more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented more than a third of the overturned judgments (36%) of the federal appellate courts.
It sounds like Miss Miers may have been an affirmative action student as well if she is faring so poorly in the mock hearings. I suspect that she lacks the factual knowledge, but we will see.
Agreed. "Janice R. Brown. Better than plan A."
Or "Bushbots."
Ah, a graduate of the Dale Carnegie school.
9th circuit cases dont have any precedent value anywhere except in the 9th circuit
Case law is case law.
and those cases usually get reviewed very quickly by the SCOTUS because the 9th circuit usually gets it wrong.
But, but, but, they are qualified. Surely their decision must be right. And unless you are qualified, you must not second guess them. Of course, the problem is that qualified people seem to disagree, how is that possible? They're qualified! Case law, stare decisis and all that jazz.
If you are going to assert that someone is making a logical fallacy, then the least you can do is attempt to argue which one, and not to simply link to a table of contents.
No need to do that for a genius such as yourself. What office are you running for?
After re-reading it, I admit it wasn't the best example of what I mean. I was in a hurry and this was what I found. There were articles saying that low level White House aides were among those revolting against the nomination, partly because they thought higher ups had not consulted them but until I can find them I will say my point is unproven.
The losers are the conservative base.
I don't blame for feeling that, but that emotion should not play into his pick for the nomination.
Neither should disappointment in not getting one of the conservative favorites play a role in opposition to Miers.
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.