Posted on 10/27/2005 10:22:03 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
why doesn't someone bring up that maybe the best nominee would be someone withOUT judicial, or even legal experience? the vast majority of the people here would make a better justice than many "qualified" potentials. it would be a "common sense" approach to the constitution, reading what it says, not looking for other meanings to create an interpretation to fit what's expediant.
In August, People For the American Way and the NAACP released a joint report opposing Brown's confirmation. In recent weeks, her nomination has met increasing opposition, both in her home state and nationally, from groups including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Alliance for Justice, AFL-CIO, Alliance for Retired Americans, Americans for Democratic Action, Feminist Majority, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Bar Association, National Council of Jewish Women, National Organization for Women, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Women's Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Planned Parenthood, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and the Sierra Club. Brown's confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee has been scheduled for Wednesday, October 22.
from people of the American way.........
In other words, it's all about your opinion? That's the way I read what you wrote.
Float that trial balloon a little.....
Well written and my thoughts also.
And this says that she's the right one at the right time.
And this time, NO MERCY on the Leftist loonies.
Sure. Whether or not a statement is "laughable" is clearly a subjective statement. Thomas didn't have the world's greatest resume when he was nominated, although, I confess that I don't recall the dynamics of the time and who else was speculated as under consideration. With the Meirs case, to suggest that she was the most qualified candidate when the alternatives include Brown, Luttig, McConnel, the Ediths, Owen, etc. is truly laughable to me. If you really think that Miers is more qualifed then all of them, I would love to know why.
It will be some chick that I never heard of before. But FR will surely have the nominee's dossier..
"Next nominee: Ann Coulter. ;-)"
We're talking about the Supreme Court, not the Hall of Shame.
"Word is that they want someone already vetted and the odds are for McConnell."
Right before Miers was nominated, sooooooo many people thought they "knew" who the nominee would be. Very few did, turns out. I think obsessing over a small list is what got people all surprised and disgruntled last time. People should be more open-minded this time around.......
That is great. Very funny. And appropriate.
Because she was President Bush's pick. That's the first constitutional qualification. Senate confirmation is the second.
And I see trouble getting any of the judges you cite through to qualification #2. Perhaps I'm just a pessimist in this matter.
So, the answer to whether or not she was "the most qualified" is that she was the President's pick? huh? Does that mean that if he nominated Pee Wee Herman that he would therefore be the most qualified?
And I see trouble getting any of the judges you cite through to qualification #2. Perhaps I'm just a pessimist in this matter.
I do think that you are being too pessimistic, but, leaving that aside, the ability to get someone through is a poltical matter that is seperate from whether she is the most qualified person for the job.
She is libertarian leaning and from her speeches she would end up ruling against most of Bush's wasteful plans. No political hack, Republican or Democrat, is going to nominate or put this woman on the Supreme Court with the possibility that the party's programs and plans could be overturned. Bush did elevate her status on the federal judiciary. But any of her rulings will be held in check by SCOTUS. With 8 statists on the bench (and Justice Thomas), any ruling that steps too far off the track will be immediately overruled
That's too bad, we need 9 of her.
I believe we have one. Justice Thomas. Bush isn't going to make the mistake of accidently putting two conservatives one the bench that would overrule his programs and handouts. Course I could be wrong. I doubt it though
Why did you put "Best Qualified" in quotes?Because "qualifications" are relative. This is perhaps an expression of my own conservatism, but IMHO the definition of public interest is the Constitution in general, summarized in the preamble in particular and specifically in the last phrase "to preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." It may seem easy to preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves, but it takes wisdom to preserve them to our posterity. So the person most qualified to sit on SCOTUS is the wisest American you can find. Thomas Sowell, anyone? Note that he isn't even a lawyer, let alone a judge. So some would call him utterly unqualified - but would you trust anyone more to see the long-run ramifications of a policy?
The President needs to get back to basics. He needs to pick the most qualified legal mind he can find that believes the Constitution can only be amended as specified in the Constitution -- not by nine black robed individuals. I know there are several women who meet the latter part of that requirement but there are also scores of men who do so. I hope the President nominates Luttig and maybe Ruth Bader Ginsberg will resign in protest that he didn't nominate another Sandra "Nightfalls on the Constitution" O'Connor.
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.