Harrient Miers - Pro or Con

[Galahad]

The biggest endorsement to me seems to be that politico's of all stripes don't like her. That's GOT to be a good thing.

 

[jrydberg]

The biggest endorsement to me seems to be that politico's of all stripes don't like her. That's GOT to be a good thing.

Valid point. I change my opinion of her

 

[Tigger_Magic]

The biggest endorsement to me seems to be that politico's of all stripes don't like her. That's GOT to be a good thing.

Harry Reid likes her. Doesn't that count for something?

 

[chris1gill]

Well according to the President and Karl Rove (who I know we can trust, right?) she is an Evangelical Christian who goes to a conservative church... As someone said this stinks of more cronyism than I have ever SMELLED... She's a puppet on a string.... These facts alone say NAY....

 

[Fantasmic303]

I have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation, but that won't stop me from adding non-intelligent thoughts to the mix...won't be the first or last time, either!!


All I know is that she reminds me of Rachel Dratch from Saturday Night Live, particularly during the Barbara Walters routine.


With that being said, it's hard for me to watch her on the news and NOT think it's an SNL skit.

 

[sodaseller]

I won't address the qualifications issue, as I am not one that believes the USSC goes to the most distinguished legal mind. History is full of counterexamples.

I will just make one admittedly snarky point. When 11-12 Dem Senators (can't remember the exact number) voted against CJ Roberts confirmation, there was all forms of punditry gnashing of teeth on how the Dem coalition was too beholden to interest groups, especially regarding Roe, that drove the politicos of confirmation, and how ugly that had made the confirmation process. Fair enough.

But now we have a candidate that looks like she will be effectively stopped by members of her own party, notwithstanding the endorsement of her own President, who is nowhere close to the center politically, because she appears too open minded and has apparently never fantasized about bombing the Democratic National Convention. But I have seen no pundit address the disproportionate influence of the Pharisaic Right in confirmation politics

 

[swilphil]

I heard on NPR's Talk of the Nation this afternoon that Karl Rove assured James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, that Miers attended an evangelical church where the vast majority of the members are pro-life. Makes me wonder what Bush's agenda is.

 

[MizBlu]

I heard on NPR's Talk of the Nation this afternoon that Karl Rove assured James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, that Miers attended an evangelical church where the vast majority of the members are pro-life. Makes me wonder what Bush's agenda is.

These people have to go. The very idea that someone so close to the President of the United States feels the need to get the approval of the lunatic fringe such as Sponge Dob(son), before an important decison is made, should shock every American.

And if it doesn't, it should be shocking just how far the US has sunk. If JFK had pulled a stunt like that with Cardinal Cushing, there would've been a firestorm.

But, then again, JFK wouldn't have done that because JFK was a real president and Bush is an arrogant, ignorant, incompetent. The Harriet Miers nomination is just the latest example.

 

[MizBlu]

Harry Reid likes her. Doesn't that count for something?

I think Harry's a better politician than people give him credit for. Why oppose Mier's nomination when her nomination is dead in the water. Harry Reid had too much of "Cheshire cat" grin.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I beg to differ....

She has too argued constitutional issues....

How cool is that, she is experienced.

Wow...so between that, her belief that President Bush is the most brilliant man she has ever met, and the fact that she helped him expunge that pesky DUI off of his driving record makes her a perfect candidate for a lifetime position on the SCOTUS. Way to go, W!! Another first class decision by a first rate President!!

Could somebody please wake me when it's 2008?

 

[MizBlu]

Wow...so between that, her belief that President Bush is the most brilliant man she has ever met, and the fact that she helped him expunge that pesky DUI off of his driving record makes her a perfect candidate for a lifetime position on the SCOTUS. Way to go, W!! Another first class decision by a first rate President!!

Could somebody please wake me when it's 2008?

She's done exactly what one has to do to succeed on Planet Bush.

As if this isn't getting wackier by the minute, now Bush is touting her religious beliefs as further proof he made another brilliant choice. And there's Harriet Miers looking on approvingly and adoringly while he drags what should be a private/personal matter, one's faith, through the dirty world of politics. Just what we need in working in this government: another Bush groupie.

I've changed my opinion of Harriet Miers too. I once thought she was a competent, intelligent woman who was nominated for a position she is not qualified for. In a way, I even felt sorry for her because I thought she was being used. No more! She's nothing more than another Bush cult member in which Bush does no wrong, the earth revolves around Bush, and all manna flows from Bush.

Btw, there's no need to wait until 2008. It's time to start some serious talk about impeachment. Bush isn't up to the job and, apparently, no one else around him is either. They don't give a damn about this country and their sole responsibility is to make Bush look good. They're running out of options and opportunities because the act is wearing thin.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Btw, there's no need to wait until 2008. It's time to start some serious talk about impeachment.

 

[MizBlu]

Laugh all you want, TM. It's us semi-old lefties who are having the real last laugh.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Maybe you should read the U.S. Constitution before issuing your clarion call for impeachment. Still it is nice to have the recurring humor on political threads, so keep up the good work.

 

[MizBlu]

Maybe you should read the U.S. Constitution before issuing your clarion call for impeachment. Still it is nice to have the recurring humor on political threads, so keep up the good work.

Oooooo, I think I've been hit..........

I suggest you do a little bit of reading and you can start here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/18.html

The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" covered a wide range and, as per the Founding Fathers, not just confined to criminal activity. Gross incompetence, gross negligence, and dereliciton of duty could also be construed as grounds for impeachment as per the Founding Fathers. The indictiment comes from the House and the Senate conducts a trial and weighs the evidence.

I think you're confusing impeachment with removal from office. They are not the same thing.

But, you knew that.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

As if this isn't getting wackier by the minute, now Bush is touting her religious beliefs as further proof he made another brilliant choice. And there's Harriet Miers looking on approvingly and adoringly while he drags what should be a private/personal matter, one's faith, through the dirty world of politics.

Noone was allowed to as much as sniff in the direction of John Roberts' Catholic upbringing, but in Miers' case, her miraculous Evangelical awakening that occured in her 40's is put out as her main claim to being the right woman for the job. The hypocracy hit parade never seems to end with some of these guys.

 

[jrydberg]

And what exactly would be the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that President Bush has committed that would even warrant mention of impeachment. There isn't a single member of Congress that I'm aware of that would hang themselves by seeking such absurdity.

One can argue that President Bush has taken the wrong approach or that his policies have been detrimental to this country. There's certainly plenty of evidence to support that. Arguing for his impeachment, however, seems pure partisan bile.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

And what exactly would be the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that President Bush has committed that would even warrant mention of impeachment. There isn't a single member of Congress that I'm aware of that would hang themselves by seeking such absurdity.

One can argue that President Bush has taken the wrong approach or that his policies have been detrimental to this country. There's certainly plenty of evidence to support that. Arguing for his impeachment, however, seems pure partisan bile.

But it doesn't stop some from performing in the theatre of the absurd for the enjoyment of many others. If the House were to impeach Presidents for "gross incompetence, gross negligence, and dereliciton of duty", I'm not sure too many in the 20th century would have been spared. Just because one disagrees (even vehemently) with a President's policies and decisions, those disagreements do not rise to the level of impeachment. I don't have a lot of faith in our 435 Representatives, but it is fortunate that, so far, they've been able to exercise more restraint than some on this board.

That said, and in an attempt to pull this thread back on track, I do agree that President Bush's nomination of Ms. Miers is an good example of "gross incompetence." I shake my head and wonder what was he thinking.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

That said, and in an attempt to pull this thread back on track, I do agree that President Bush's nomination of Ms. Miers is an good example of "gross incompetence." I shake my head and wonder what was he thinking.

Saw Pat Buchanan last Sunday on Meet the Press and he was incredibly angered by President Bush and his betrayal of the 40 year Republican Revolution's mission to reshape the SCOTUS, beginning with Nixon. Knowing your politics they way that many of us do, is your angle for disapproving of the Miers' nomination solely due to her lack of experience, or like Buchanan, due to the fact that Bush should have nominated a Priscilla Owens-type who's far right leanings are well known and not a shot in the dark?

 

[DisDuck]

The OP back. I want to list below several quotes from Bush and from a legal scholar. Draw your own conclusions but from these quotes, it seems that Bush does have a litmus test and it is religion which is against Article 6 of the constitution. Whom... impeachment????


"President Bush indicated Wednesday that Harriet E. Miers' religious beliefs were one reason he nominated her to the Supreme Court — comments that drew quick criticism from liberal groups, which said religion should not be considered a qualification to sit on the nation's highest bench.

Bush's remarks came on the same day that Christian leader James C. Dobson, president of Focus on the Family, told his radio show listeners that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove had assured him before the announcement of Miers' selection that she was a committed evangelical Christian.

Bush previously has stressed his knowledge of her character, but this was the first time he publicly referred to her faith when asked about picking her."

"We were told we weren't even allowed to bring up the topic of religion when John G. Roberts was nominated for the Supreme Court," the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a statement. "Anyone who did was quickly labeled a bigot. Now Bush and Rove are touting where Miers goes to church and using that as a selling point. The hypocrisy is staggering."

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."

"The president and his people are using repeated assurances about Miers' religion to send not-so-subtle messages about how she might rule on the court on issues important to the president's political supporters," Neas said. "It's a shabby ploy unworthy of the debate over a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."

Kermit Hall, president of the State University of New York at Albany and editor of the "Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States," said it was unusual for a president to emphasize the religious beliefs or affiliation of a nominee to the Supreme Court.

Since President Wilson named Louis Brandeis to the high court, "tacitly there has been some understanding that we should have some Jewish representation on the court, just as nowadays there is some representation of gender and African American background," Hall said. "But I cannot think of any president who has ever made a nomination because of the religious beliefs that a person held."



OP again.. So while consideration has been given to what creed, gender, race of a nominee it has never been used as the 'sole' criteria. She may be a pioneer for women in the legal profession but so what that does not make her qualified for the Supreme Court. I am sure that there are many other women who were pioneer's in the legal profession in their respective states. If being a pioneer is 'so important' then find on with some experience in constitutional law. I am sure that they are out there.