Bogus Scotus
After watching the press conference today and listening to the ramblings of Bush over his nominee, Harriet Miers, I am convinced that she should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court, based only on the fact that she is not qualified.
Contrast her resume to that of John Roberts. There is no way Harriet Miers even comes close. Her only qualification is that she is a "friend" of George W. Bush. This administration is all about elitism and its rewards.
The liklihood of Miers being confirmed is about 50/50 in my estimation. She has no paper trail to research. Anything she has done while working as a practicing attorney is subject to "attorney/client priviledge."
So what else do we know about her? She is a "born again" Christian. Well, that doesn't disqualify her, but neither does it qualify her. Bush knows her heart, well he knows Vladimir's soul too, but that and $3 gets you a gallon of gas. She is a corporate attorney, that's probably more negative than positive. In short we don't know very much about her.
The Republicans are disappointed because they didn't get their John Birch Justice and the Democrats cry cronyism, but are feeling okay that she might just be a Sandra Day O'Connor replacement. Both liberal and conservative sides have their own conspiracy theories about the choice. At any rate the Judicial Committe hearings should be very interesting. I hope that the questioning will be about her qualifications moreso than her political philosophy, because on qualifications alone she is not the best candidate. How Bush could nominate John Roberts and turn around and nominate Harriet Miers is incredulous.
I actually think Bush is on the verge on having a breakdown. The press conference today was very revealing. He cannot seem to put together his thoughts even on the softball questions from the press corps. The swagger is gone. I'm thinking the inner circle is in complete chaos. Cheney calling Rush to tell him that in 10 years he will be glad Miers is on the SCOTUS? That is a little bizarro even in the darkest corners of Limbaughland.
The social conservative base is feeling abandoned, but the elite base is elated. Could it be that Bush has lied (again) but to the base of social conservatives that helped elect him? Do they see that the man they have idolized for so long has only played them for the patsy? He could care less about their causes, but he tells them what they want to hear. How else could it be that they voted to elect someone who does not act in their own best interest? There are three kinds of Republican, those that were lied to, those that don't care and those that are sorry.
posted by Red Dog @ 9:33 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
You've raised some important issues and points LR. For the most part I will agree with you, neither party is your father's Republican nor Democrat.
You point out, rightly so, up until the New Deal, the Republicans were much more progressive than Democrats. Or you could say the Great Depression. One was the beginning of the end for a party and the other was a beginning.
I'm thinking I would like to debate these points separately in a post and perhaps draw some other comments.
I believe that the country is heading for a more "Centrist" government. Which is the rationale for Hillary's actions, perhaps a movement the Clinton's and the Bush's hope to lead. Eventually both parties will move away from the extremist in their camps.
Dissension, however, must always be protected as an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Individual rights, in general, must be protected by those elected to serve and those appointed to serve. Without individual rights there is no democracy.
Dog, This is off subject but Michael Yon has a new piece at
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/
Nofatcat
Your problem is that you are completely one dimensional in your thinking, and so blindly anti-Bush that your obvious intent of "posting-bias" practically obscures anything at all you say that might otherwise make some sense.Additionally, you show little knowledge of how the Supreme Court actually works. That being said, you have some in reasonably high places who, also erroneously, agree with you, such as Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Law Professor: "No One That I Know Of Would Have Put Harriet Miers On Any List For The Court. She Just Doesn't Have The Resume To Justify A Position." (MSNBC's "News Live," 10/3/05)
Fact: Miers Has Tremendous Legal Qualifications:
"In Her Time In The Administration, Ms. Miers Has Addressed Numerous Legal And Policy Questions At The Highest Levels Of Decisionmaking, Most Recently Serving As The Counsel To The President Of The United States." That being no slouch position, but arguably, cronyism could occur, or be accused, except for many other facts, curiously not in evidence in your posting on the candidate, such as:
"In 1985, Ms. Miers Was Selected As The First Woman To Become President Of The Dallas Bar Association."
" In 1992, She Became The First Woman Elected President Of The State Bar Of Texas. Ms. Miers Served As The President Of The State Bar Of Texas From 1992 To 1993."
"The Women And The Law Section Of The State Bar Of Texas Has Awarded Its 1993 Sarah T. Hughes Women Lawyers Of Achievement Award To Louise Raggio And State Bar President Harriet Miers." (Bruce Vincent, "Honors," Texas Lawyer, 3/22/93)
"In March 1996, Her Colleagues Elected Her The First Female President Of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, At That Time A Firm Of About 200 Lawyers. She Was The First Woman To Lead A Texas Firm Of That Size."
"Harriet Miers, President Of Dallas' Locke Purnell Rain Harrell, Was One Of 20 Other Women Nominated For The [1996 Texas Trailblazer Award]." (Tara Wilkinson, "Newsmakers," Texas Lawyers, 10/28/96)
"[In 1997] She Was Named To The [National Law Journal's] List Of 100 Most Powerful Attorneys." ("50 Top Women Lawyers," The National Law Journal, 3/30/98)
"[Miers] Received A Distinguished Alumni Award From The SMU Law School In 1997." (SMU Website, www.smu.edu, Accessed 9/29/05)
In 1998, National Law Journal Named Harriet Miers One Of The Fifty Most Influential Women Lawyers In America. ("50 Top Women Lawyers," The National Law Journal, 3/30/98)
In 2000, National Law Journal Named Harriet Miers One Of The One Hundred Most Influential Lawyers In America. ("The Most Influential Lawyers In America," The National Law Journal, 6/12/00)
"Miers Was Given The Women Of Excellence Award By Women's Enterprise Magazine In 1997 ..." (Bush-Cheney, Press Release, 1/5/01)
Miers Was Awarded The Sandra Day O'Connor Award For Professional Excellence By The Texas Center For Legal Ethics And Professionalism In 2005. (Texas Center For Legal Ethics And Professionalism Website, www.txethics.org, Accessed 10/3/05)
Fact: Numerous Senators Urged The President To Pick A Non-Judge For This Opening:
MSNBC's Bob Kur: "[I]t's Interesting To Note That The President Was Urged By Members Of The Senate Judiciary Committee, Some Of Them At Least, Not To Pick Someone Who Has Had A History As A Judge, Who Has Been In The Appellate Court System. That's Exactly What He Did. ... We Know The President Wasn't Offering Any Names From What We Were Told, So It Was A Name That Seemed Acceptable To At Least Some Of The Top Senate People That The President Consulted With." (MSNBC's "News Live," 10/3/05)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "I Said The Same Thing To President Reagan, To Former President Bush, To President Clinton, And Now To This President, That Think Of Going Outside The Judiciary Monastery." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Press Conference, 9/21/05)
So come on! This is a very smart lady, with tons of experience, acres of integrity, and a good choice. You want another Souter? Here's more:Leahy: "Some Of Our Finest Justices Are People Who Came From Outside And Then Proved Themselves On The Court. And Having That Diversity Of Thought Would Not Hurt The Court At All." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Press Conference, 9/21/05)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): "[I] Had At The Table - There Were Four Of The Supreme Court Justices There - They Said That They Thought What Would Be A Good Idea Is To Start Calling People From Outside The Judicial System. I Think That's Something That We Should Listen To." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Conference, 6/28/05)
Fact: Numerous Supreme Court Judges Have Had No Judicial Experience:
"Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice William O. Douglas, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Felix Frankfurter, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, Justice Louis Brandeis, And Even Chief Justice John Marshall All Were Appointed To The United States Supreme Court Without Prior Judicial Experience." (The White House, Fact Sheet, 10/3/05)
"In All, Thirty-Eight Previous Justices Had Never Been A Judge At Any Level Before Their Appointment To The Court." (The White House, Fact Sheet, 10/3/05)
NBC's Tim Russert: "It Is Also Interesting, Historically ... Of The 110 People Who Have Sat On The Supreme Court, Only Half Have Been Sitting Judges When Selected ... History Is Filled With People With Backgrounds Similar To Harriet Miers." (NBC's "Today," 10/3/05)
Come on J.V. I thought I was using some excellent critical thinking skills. You may be wagging your tail over the Bush "trust me" qualification, but the majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee ain't buying it. Neither is the evangelical base. Nor is is Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer.
Interesting that Repubs want to find out her "political philosophy" after just chastising Dems for doing the same to Roberts. Double Standard? Flip flopping? Call it what you may, but when the prez's own party is calling foul, there is a fire amongst all that smoke.
So, she was in Who's Who and voted most likely to succeed in her high school, I'm sorry that does not cut it for a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS. We need more information than a list of honors and a "trust me."
James Dobson and the President both know something we don't know. I think they should share it, that's all.
The problem with you guys, J.V., is that someone lost the Code Book and many are making it up on the fly.
Perhaps that is why the Democrats are no longer in control of anything? Where are the feminist groups on this issue? This is a strong, powerful, smart, successful woman, admired by everyone who has ever known her and worked with her. They ranted like howling banshees over Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill (he said "pubic hair"!!!!)Look, this woman, had she been picked by a Democratic President would have been praised to high heaven and you know it. You are just playing your side of the game. I am not a Republican and I am certainly not a Democrat. I watched for eight years as the republicans took cheap shots at Clinton for being a near child molesting sex fanatic with no better judgement than to have sex with a youthful subordinate in the oval office in the middle of a workday, when what they SHOULD have been worried about was the cozy deals he put together with any country and any regime willing to later pay him the massive speaking fees he now gets. But the cheap shots abound from either side. Sandy Berger, we have all sort of "forgotten" he shoved secret documents in his pants and outright stole them, and gets a slap on the wrist, but we want to crucify Rove for maybe mentioning Plame (someone everyone in Virginia knew was CIA) and every Republican leaders security clearance quashed if they burp out of line!You have a Democratic senior leader, Byrd, who was in, and actually an "officer" in, the KKK, and that's ok, but if Trent Lott says something nice to an old man that may have some sort of racial overtone, he gets mauled like bait for starving tigers. The total hypocricy on both sides is just nauseating. You have a fat drunken "murderer by omission" in power in Mass. for 45 years, who screams "Bush is a liar" at the top of his scotch drenched lungs,and drunkenly calls Obama "Osama" while laughing, and you guys are proud of his leadership? Now you KNOW (and be honest at least with yourself) that unless Bush had picked Bill Clinton for the Court, you guys would seek to crucify anyone he could have picked. Oh, you will say, "no, if he had picked X or Y!!" well, you might say that NOW, but now we have who we have and you better get used to it, because she gets in and she is in for life. And she will get in. You do realize that, right? Let me ask you a serious question. What if what "James Dobson knows" is of no significance? Then what? What will the next line of rant be? Does the fact that the Supreme Court has consisted of about half non-judge members, and that a large number of them have similar backgrounds to this lady, mean anything? Do you really think making a joke about her accomplishments in life being like high school popularity contests is intellectually sound in focusing your position? The meat on the bones here is still the same. Miers is a good choice. It is Bush's choice to make. He made it and the Dems squirm because they can't really do anything about it. Who would you pick, if it was you choice....really?
Alberto Gonzales (unless he is implicated in the Plame investigation for obstructing justice - his 12 hour lapse in time of notifying the WH except for Andy Card). And actually if you read back you should notice that I do think John Roberts was an excellent choice.
As far as Byrd's previous affiliation with the KKK, you should realize that he is a holdover from the Dixiecrats and that all new "Republicans" in the South are of the same ilk.
I'm far less concerned with Clinton's sexual escapes and cozy speaking deals than I am with our cozy trade deals with China that steal jobs from Americans and strap future generations with debt.
If you listen, it's the Republicans who are squirming over the President's choice right now, not the Democrats. My position is that the best qualified person should be nominated. I think it is a stretch for you to believe she is the best qualified. It's not just me, check out Ann Coulter's (Goddess of Conservatism) opinion, she thinks Barney, the dog, is a better candidate.
I'm sure you know that not everyone that works at the CIA is a covert agent and that the CIA would not be calling for the investigation if they didn't feel that they were compromised. Stay tuned to see what comes from the investigation.
Post a Comment
<< Home