Free Republic

Some people are unhappy with Bush's choice for the Supreme Court and they're willing to throw away Iraqi democracy, Afghan democracy, freedom for Afghan women, a secure nation because Miers isn't on their special list of ok nominees. I'm sick of it.

I am quite happy with GWB's foreign policy, but nonplussed with his domestic agenda. Miers isn't on my special list of SCOTUS nominees. I'm disappointed in the pick.

Now the burden is on Miers and GWB to sell the pick to the public. But he's got an uphill sell of this nomination, with me.

... she spent 5 of the last 10 years running a lottery.

Hmmm. Maybe we should have "Fed-Ball" - the biggest lottery in the country! The proceeds could be used for no child left behind, the drug for seniors program, and enforcement of laws against political contributions.

Dick Cheney has worked out all right, hasn't he? I think Ms. Miers will, too, and for the same reason

Cheney had a proven track record in previous administrations, and as an executive in a big coporation. He was a better known quantity for the position he was seeking, by far.

... why not have picked someone obviously like a Scalia....as he promised during his campaign...to get strict Constitutionalists on the bench?

Each possible nominee comes with unique issues, the calculus is quite complicated. Miers may in fact be a strict Constitutionalist; but her confirmation hearings are going to be more about her qualifications that about Constitutional principles.

I think neither GWB nor the Senate want to fight on a matter of principle. Other than the principle of "Go along to get along."

President saying Mier's "will not legislate from the bench" and that he's "known her for more than a decade" and "knows her heart." So, why did he pick her and not Brown?

We can only speculate. The objections to Miers are more likely to be based on qualifications and cronyism, while the objections to Brown would be based on her interpretation of Constitutional principle.

Whether or not GWB is avoiding a fight based on Constitutional principle, in favor of a fight based on a charge of personal favor -- well, we can only guess. It is fair to assume that this was a carefully made choice.

Bush is not even calling her a constructionist as he did at the Roberts announcement.

He did express that sentiment though, that the nominee would not "legislate from the bench."

The woman looks like Dr. Ruth ...

ROTFL!!! - bump -

How do we know she is pro-choice? Let's see evidence before we make such a claim.

Her personal opinion is irrelevant, -IF- she subordinates her judicial opinions to the Constitution and legislative intent.

She'll get more votes than the more qualified Roberts.

That speaks to the dishonesty of the DEMs who did not vote to confirm Roberts. If she is qualified for the job, a Senator should vote for the nominee.

If she is indeed the pick and sails through, It will be real fun to come back to this thread when she turns out to be in the Scalia/Thomas mold

This thread will be a historical hoot no matter how this nomination unfolds. ;-)

Not making any judgement, but I wonder if her temperament fits the mold of Carly Fiorina. That is, whether she might be the "legal-profession equivalent" of the business power-broker.

Oh well, if the choice has some basis in cronyism, I'm glad it wasn't Gonzales.

I would hate to think that the most important qualification for this job has become the LACK of a record.

Of course that's not the most important qualification; but the lack of paper trail seems to be important to GWB.

I hoped for a nominee that would force resolution of the imporoer use of cloture to keep the Senate from rendering advice & consent, and a Supreme Court Justice with a staunch conservative record. But in the immortal words of Mick Jagger, "You can't always get what you wa-ant."

Wonder if this is a head fake. If not, she fits the "Roberts" mold as in not being a high profile possibility.

Good - first thing in the morning. I'm looking forward to hearing the name of the nominee.

And that DOJ referral contends that she was covert.

It is uncontested that she was at some point. But it is contested, by at least 36 media outlets, whether she had any covert status that would support a violation of 50 USC 421 et seq by anybody, in 2002.

March 23, 2005 Amici Brief of 36 News Organizations

That brief also describes the CIA referral to the DOJ, but does not contain a copy of it.

It would seem that I know little enough about the matter to become a FNC host-ette.

Heheheh.

Well, CG is a federal agency, so one would look to federal law for jurisdiction.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/33cfr2_04.html <- study up!

Joe Wilson: "[W]hat They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby's Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ..." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/3/03)

Continuing that transcript results in an impression that corresponds with Wilson's statement in his "What I didn't find in Africa" column.

WILSON: Well, look, it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger.

What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself...

BLITZER: Scooter Libby is the chief of staff for the vice president.

WILSON: Scooter Libby.

They asked essentially that we follow up on this report -- that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/03/le.00.html

Doesn't the COAST GUARD mean it's on the COAST?

Well, "coast" covers lots of ground. CG operates on the Great Lakes, for example, as well as larger navigable rivers.

http://www.uscgboating.org/safety/aton/offices.htm

"Waters of Juristriction" "Coast Guard" <- I haven't googled it, but would expect some fruit.

I thought E=MC2 is what happens in fission and fusion, the result of splitting or adding protons from an atom.
The gas in the car is chemical energy.

Even chemical reactions invoke E = mc²

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03534.htm
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/10/01/really/ <- better one

After a moment of silence he said there are NO coast guard on the lake.

As far as I know, CG is routinely involved -only- on waters that can facilitate interstate traffic/commerce.