Harrient Miers - Pro or Con

[Tigger_Magic]

I'll buy the first round.

Done! I'll pick up the 2nd then.

 

[MizBlu]

I'm on the KK side!

Need a hand? I'll cover you.

 

[MizBlu]

With the nomination of "moderate" John Roberts, all we heard from the right was that throughout history, the President is typically given a free pass to choose anyone to his liking, so the libs should keep their yaps shut and OK the nomination. Now that the Conservatives have someone that they don't like, the far right is angry at the President and shouting "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater! I guess Bush is a uniter, and not a divider! I love it!!

Wonder how long it will take the Swift Boaters to peer out from under their rocks and start lesbian rumors about Ms. Miers...I mean, she's single, no visable love interest, is in her 60's and loves softball!! What...the rumors have already started?!?! My bad!!

It just gets better and better every day. This has been such a banner month, maybe it should go to 32 days.

 

[missypie]

With the nomination of "moderate" John Roberts, all we heard from the right was that throughout history, the President is typically given a free pass to choose anyone to his liking, so the libs should keep their yaps shut and OK the nomination. Now that the Conservatives have someone that they don't like, the far right is angry at the President and shouting "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater! I guess Bush is a uniter, and not a divider! I love it!!

Wonder how long it will take the Swift Boaters to peer out from under their rocks and start lesbian rumors about Ms. Miers...I mean, she's single, no visable love interest, is in her 60's and loves softball!! What...the rumors have already started?!?! My bad!!

That's so funny, because I was just about to ask if anyone thought that her longtime "boyfriend" Nathan Hecht, is gay!

 

[DisDuck]

I guess no one read my post on page 3. There does seem to be a possible impeachable offense by Bush on her nomination. It is called Article 6 of The Constitution which states something about religion should not be a criteria for federal appointments. In recent days Bush and his staff his 'harped' quite abit about Miers religious affiliation and thinking. So if she is being nominated because of her religion then Bush has violated Article 6 and therefore should have Articles of Impeachment brought against him.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Need a hand? I'll cover you.

Common ground! I know there are some serious DD-defenders on the DIS and this could get ugly really fast.

My motto: Don't stand between me and my chocolate frosted creme filled doughnut!

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I guess no one read my post on page 3. There does seem to be a possible impeachable offense by Bush on her nomination. It is called Article 6 of The Constitution which states something about religion should not be a criteria for federal appointments. In recent days Bush and his staff his 'harped' quite abit about Miers religious affiliation and thinking. So if she is being nominated because of her religion then Bush has violated Article 6 and therefore should have Articles of Impeachment brought against him.

I read it, DD. I don't see any impeachable offense by President Bush on this nomination. Unless you have some smoking gun to reveal...

The talk about Ms. Miers religious affiliation is political hype in an effort to appease certain groups. As others said, it's a not-so-veiled attempt to indicate that Ms. Miers would decide certain cases, such as abortion, "properly" without actually coming out and saying it. I seriously doubt this administration would be stupid enough to violate Article 6 in such a blatant way.

That said, it does provide an interesting "out" should the administration decide to yank the nomination.

 

[Bob Slydell]

I guess no one read my post on page 3. There does seem to be a possible impeachable offense by Bush on her nomination. It is called Article 6 of The Constitution which states something about religion should not be a criteria for federal appointments. In recent days Bush and his staff his 'harped' quite abit about Miers religious affiliation and thinking. So if she is being nominated because of her religion then Bush has violated Article 6 and therefore should have Articles of Impeachment brought against him.

From your post...

Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal group People for the American Way, cited Article 6 of the Constitution, which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust."

It says that a religious test can't be required, not that the decision can't be based on religion. If Bush was to ask Miers what her religion was and base his decision on her answer, that's whever he would violated the clause in the Constitution.

 

[jrydberg]

I'll buy the doughnuts

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I'll buy the doughnuts

I'll sit at your table, but ONLY if you buy the right doughnuts. Please make sure the "Hot doughnuts now" sign is on.

 

[MizBlu]

I guess no one read my post on page 3. There does seem to be a possible impeachable offense by Bush on her nomination. It is called Article 6 of The Constitution which states something about religion should not be a criteria for federal appointments. In recent days Bush and his staff his 'harped' quite abit about Miers religious affiliation and thinking. So if she is being nominated because of her religion then Bush has violated Article 6 and therefore should have Articles of Impeachment brought against him.

I'm sorry, I did miss your post. And let me add this, when it comes to the Articles of Impeachment, the Bush administration is like a supermarket. There's so much, you don't even know where to begin. If this had been a Democratic House, Bush would've been impeached 6 months after there were no WMD's. There's plenty of grounds for impeachment. And contrary to what some of our fellow Dis'er's believe, I wouldn't be so damned sure Bush isn't going to be impeached by how his own party. There's no great love affair between Congress and the WH. The WH has been just as high- handed with the members of Congress as it has been to everyone else. Why put up with it: Because the WH served it purpose via Bush coattails. Take away those coattails, replace them with liabilities, and let the games begin.

However, you may be onto to something there when it comes to why Harriet Miers got the nod. If Bush keeps pushing Miers's "religion", this could get interesting.

 

[MizBlu]

Common ground! I know there are some serious DD-defenders on the DIS and this could get ugly really fast.

My motto: Don't stand between me and my chocolate frosted creme filled doughnut!

I'll take those raspberry-filled doughnuts. In fact, I think I'll take one now. I bought a box this morning. Doughnut?

 

[MizBlu]

I'll buy the doughnuts

Say, aren't you a DD man? And I don't mean a "double D" man?

 

[jrydberg]

Say, aren't you a DD man? And I don't mean a "double D" man?

No need to resort to insults! KK all the way

 

[MizBlu]

No need to resort to insults! KK all the way

Okay, we've got a tribe: me, you and TM.

Here's the plan; when they're not looking we steal their DD's and replace them with KK's. Let's sychronize our watches.

 

[MizBlu]

Back to the OP. Anybody else catch Bork tonight on Hardball? He was ripping Harriet Miers a new one and I do mean ripping. He basically said, based on one of her papers, she not only cannot grasp constitutional concepts, she can't even write a coherent sentence. He also had that look in his eye: What the hell were they thinking?

 

[Pop Daddy]

Et tu, W ?

 

[sodaseller]

Back to the OP. Anybody else catch Bork tonight on Hardball? He was ripping Harriet Miers a new one and I do mean ripping. He basically said, based on one of her papers, she not only cannot grasp constitutional concepts, she can't even write a coherent sentence. He also had that look in his eye: What the hell were they thinking?

That's an argument in her favor. Bork's unhinged on these issues

 

[MizBlu]

That's an argument in her favor. Bork's unhinged on these issues

Unhinged or not, it was refreshing. The opposition to Harriet Miers isn't because of her beliefs. It's because it is who she is, her thin resume, and how she is not qualified for the position of associate justice of the SC.

Pushing her religious beliefs or delight in collecting red, white, and blue M & M's is what happens when there's no "there" there.

And you're probably kidding about Bork's opposition to Harriet Miers, but be very careful with the argument: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It causes people to lose focus.

 

[N.Bailey]

Honestly...I have no idea how to feel about her. She is certainly unqualified for the position, based solely upon her resume. That said, I like the fact that she is an independant woman that has made her way very successfully in a very-much male dominated field.

But that lack of qualifications is certainly troubling. The fact that Bush has claimed that she's the most qualified candidate he could find leads me to believe that he simply didn't look very hard. I mean...her most prestigious position to date was as President of the Texas Bar Association, and while that's nice, I'm not sure it qualifies her for lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Particularly when she's never sat on any court at all.

I think what Bush meant when he said that was, she was the most qualified within 50' from him!

As a Republican, I do not feel she's qualified. Bush is turning away from his base on this one and it's very troubling. While I'm not really a fan of Ann Coulter, it screams to me when even she doesn't support this decision. She always supports the party no matter what, something I've never done.

There are so many qualified individuals out there that would have been a voice for the party (without question) and Bush took the easy way out with this one. It appears that he's just appointing another of his dear old friends!

I'm so glad he won't be on the '08 ticket. As a Republican, I'm really getting tired of him!