Harrient Miers - Pro or Con

[Tigger_Magic]

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?

I disapprove of Ms. Miers' nomination because she is not qualified to serve on SCOTUS. She graduated from a law school (certainly not one of the top ones), so yes she has her law degree. She apparently argued a case before SCOTUS. But what else is in her resume that supposedly qualifies her to be an Associate Justice? There's nothing short of being the first woman to head the TX Bar Association and being female. Maybe the latter is enough for Laura Bush, but neither one indicates that Ms. Miers is the sort of brilliant legal mind the nation needs wrestling with constitutional issues. Then again, we got stuck with Souter and Ginsburg, so maybe Miers is not so bad after all?

My bottom line is qualifications, not political, religious, or other leanings. With SCOTUS there is no such thing as a sure thing. O'Connor was supposed to be a sure thing and look how she worked out. As Ann Coulter put it, we need "lawyers with giant brains to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367...", not someone with a literally paper-thin resume and no significant accomplishments.

 

[missypie]

As far as what church you belong to saying what you believe in: My parents are so far to the left, I think they're actually socialists (although they wouldn't say that). They belong to a Southern Baptist church, my dad is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, and a graduate of Bob Jones University. The far right would LOVE my dad's credentials...and BOY would they be in for a surprise!

Funny, I grew up thinking we were "normal"....religiously conservative, socially liberal....little did I know that there were few of us!

 

[sodaseller]

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.

I had the same thought. FWIW, I had no problem with Roberts' brand of Catholicism - it is not the politicized theocratic Opus Dei style. But if it were, I would have supported opposing him on just those grounds. But liberals have been attacked for injecting religion into the equation, when it is plain that the Pharisaic Right views certain "kinds" of faith as a proxy for what type of judge the nominee will be, which was the exactly the Democrat's point!

 

[yeartolate]

She apparently argued a case before SCOTUS. .

Actually I don't think she has. If you are referring to my link WSJ she argued a case based on the 12th amendment (for CHeney), but not to the SCOTUS.

 

[sodaseller]

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.

It's worse that that. Dobson is moderate compaed to some of the indivduals that vet nominees in this Administration


TNR

May 27, 2002

One weekend in early May, Alberto Gonzales, President Bush's White House counsel and longtime confidant, found himself motoring out to a Ritz-Carlton in the Virginia suburbs to hang out with creationists and Christian reconstructionists. Gonzales spoke before some 500 members of the Council for National Policy (CNP), an umbrella group of social conservatives that includes major figures such as James Dobson and Gary Bauer, as well as some of the fringiest elements of the right--including Henry Morris, who has devoted his career to the proposition that evolution is a myth; and R.J. Rushdoony, a reconstructionist who advocates replacing the American legal system with the injunctions of the Old Testament. But several of the attendees say they were disappointed by Gonzales, who gave a humdrum speech about the daily life of the White House counsel and offered little ideological red meat. Even during the question-and-answer session, when he was peppered with questions about various social issues, Gonzales remained cautious, betraying little about his personal beliefs--and doing little to win over a skeptical audience. As one attendee put it: "It was not a conservative being cautious; it was a judicial liberal being cautious."

So how bad is the late Dr. Rushdoony, whom this Adminsitration used to consult (and still consults his successors in the Christian Reconstructionist movement):Reason

For connoisseurs of surrealism on the American right, it's hard to beat an exchange that appeared about a decade ago in the Heritage Foundation magazine Policy Review. It started when two associates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell wrote an article which criticized Christian Reconstructionism, the influential movement led by theologian Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony, for advocating positions that even they as committed fundamentalists found "scary." Among Reconstructionism's highlights, the article cited support for laws "mandating the death penalty for homosexuals and drunkards." The Rev. Rushdoony fired off a letter to the editor complaining that the article had got his followers' views all wrong: They didn't intend to put drunkards to death.

Ah, yes, accuracy does count. In a world run by Rushdoony followers, sots would escape capital punishment--which would make them happy exceptions indeed. Those who would face execution include not only gays but a very long list of others: blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of "unchastity before marriage," "incorrigible" juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics. And that's to say nothing of murderers and those guilty of raping married women or "betrothed virgins." Adulterers, among others, might meet their doom by being publicly stoned--a rather abrupt way for the Clinton presidency to end.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Actually I don't think she has. If you are referring to my link WSJ she argued a case based on the 12th amendment (for CHeney), but not to the SCOTUS.

Thanks... I sit corrected.

 

[Teejay32]

I'm just okay with her. She's never been a judge, her constitutional law positions are unknown, but her experience seems solid, varied, and current and it appeals to me to have a corporate/contract lawyer of her caliber on the nation's highest court. Qualification is in the eye of the beholder. I'll reserve judgment until the hearings.

But the idea of Bush ticking off his Buchananesque "base", the higher echelons of legal practice and leftists in general has a kind of perverse appeal of its own, so I'll be cheering for her during the hearings.

 

[conciergekelly]

The part that bugs me is that with all of the reassuring that is going on by the president about her religous backgroud ...and the complaining (almost demanding) about her by the far right... Whatever happened to we don't want to have a litmus test and the president gets to pick who he wants to be in the Supreme court?. Now that they are not happy, the rules don't apply. I guess they didn't really think that he would break a promise to them and pull another crony out of the hat.

 

[Galahad]

But the idea of Bush ticking off his Buchananesque "base", the higher echelons of legal practice and leftists in general has a kind of perverse appeal of its own, so I'll be cheering for her during the hearings.

Yep - that's my thinking as well.

 

[sodaseller]

I'm just okay with her. She's never been a judge, her constitutional law positions are unknown, but her experience seems solid, varied, and current and it appeals to me to have a corporate/contract lawyer of her caliber on the nation's highest court. Qualification is in the eye of the beholder. I'll reserve judgment until the hearings.

But the idea of Bush ticking off his Buchananesque "base", the higher echelons of legal practice and leftists in general has a kind of perverse appeal of its own, so I'll be cheering for her during the hearings.

Where are you detecting anger from "leftists in general" or "the higher echelons of legal practice?" I have seen neither

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Where are you detecting anger from "leftists in general" or "the higher echelons of legal practice?" I have seen neither

True...I see most saying "Thank god!! It could have been Priscilla Owens, Edith Jones, or some other goosestepper from the far right!". That's why the Buchanans of the world are POed...she's not a sure thing!

 

[sodaseller]

True...I see most saying "Thank god!! It could have been Priscilla Owens, Edith Jones, or some other goosestepper from the far right!".

My thoughts exactly

 

[MizBlu]

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.

Here's a couple of examples of gross incompetence, gross negligence and dereliction of duty and you tell me who/what/when/and where you saw another president do the same thing:

1) What president, other than Bush, went to a birthday party when a category 5 hurricane hit the gulf coast reducing it matchsticks? The gulf coast is home to most of the refineries in this country.

2) What president, other than Bush, played pretend guitar while New Orleans was filling up like a soup bowl?

Can you remember any of these things happening before in this country with any other president?

C'mon, TM, you're a smart man. The obvious is staring you in the face.

Bush's behavior is bizarre, and the appointment of an unqualified crony is just the latest manisfestation. Honestly, ask yourself, do you trust Bush to continue steering this ship of state? Do you trust him to make another 1 or 2 Supreme Court nominations? ?Do you trust his judgement at all?

And bringing it all back to the OP, this whole Harriet Miers incident is disturbing to say the least.

 

[mickeyfan2]

Here's a couple of examples of gross incompetence, gross negligence and dereliction of duty and you tell me who/what/when/and where you saw another president do the same thing:

1) What president, other than Bush, went to a birthday party when a category 5 hurricane hit the gulf coast reducing it matchsticks? The gulf coast is home to most of the refineries in this country.

2) What president, other than Bush, played pretend guitar while New Orleans was filling up like a soup bowl?

Lets say that both are in the "gross incompetence, gross negligence and dereliction of duty" as you stated. I still do not see how either is an impeachable offense. Can you please explain it to me?

 

[MizBlu]

But the idea of Bush ticking off his Buchananesque "base", the higher echelons of legal practice and leftists in general has a kind of perverse appeal of its own, so I'll be cheering for her during the hearings.

Yep - that's my thinking as well.

I look at things a bit differently. When two opposing sides see the same problem and react in the same way, stand back and take a second look at what's causing it.

Or, to use another cliche: "Where there's smoke, there's fire."

 

[Galahad]

I look at things a bit differently. When two opposing sides see the same problem and react in the same way, stand back and take a second look at what's causing it.

Or, to use another cliche: "Where there's smoke, there's fire."

Ah, but they don't see the same problem. The right want proof that she is either sufficiently conservative or sufficiently constructionist. The left see her as an incompetent proving the incompetence they've been telling us about all along. Really very different things.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Here's a couple of examples of gross incompetence, gross negligence and dereliction of duty and you tell me who/what/when/and where you saw another president do the same thing:

1) What president, other than Bush, went to a birthday party when a category 5 hurricane hit the gulf coast reducing it matchsticks? The gulf coast is home to most of the refineries in this country.

2) What president, other than Bush, played pretend guitar while New Orleans was filling up like a soup bowl?

Can you remember any of these things happening before in this country with any other president?

This is the best you can come up with for "gross incompetence, negligence and dereliction of duty? Scraping the bottom of the partisanship barrel for these examples? I am sure President Bush could have single-handedly stopped a cat 5 hurricane and just like the little Dutch boy, he could have stuck his finger in the levees and stopped the flooding. As a now infamous Dis-er used to say, you can't make this stuff up!

C'mon, TM, you're a smart man. The obvious is staring you in the face.

Thanks for the compliment, but what seems obvious to you is not so clear to me. Sorry to burst your bubble about my intelligence, but as I tell people at work, it's all smoke and mirrors anyway!

Bush's behavior is bizarre, and the appointment of an unqualified crony is just the latest manisfestation. Honestly, ask yourself, do you trust Bush to continue steering this ship of state? Do you trust him to make another 1 or 2 Supreme Court nominations? ?Do you trust his judgement at all?

I agree that this nomination is bizarre. But overall I believe in many areas he is doing a good job, just as I believe President Clinton did an overall good job. I know that President Bush does not steer the ship of state alone. If he gets 1 or 2 more nominations, I hope that he and his team can find someone who is actually qualified to serve on SCOTUS. As they say, hope springs eternal.

And bringing it all back to the OP, this whole Harriet Miers incident is disturbing to say the least.

You got that right!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

As a now infamous Dis-er used to say, you can't make this stuff up!

Why "now infamous"...did something happen in the 15 minutes I was gone?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Ah, but they don't see the same problem. The right want proof that she is either sufficiently conservative or sufficiently constructionist. The left see her as an incompetent proving the incompetence they've been telling us about all along. Really very different things.

Absolutely correct...

I read an interesting opinion piece in The Progressive last month that opined that Bush really doesn't want Roe v. Wade overturned and that all of the anti-abortion lip service he gives to his Christian followers is just a smokescreen to hang onto his presidency. Now that he's entering the lame duck faze of his career, regardless of what he actually says, he really doesn't care what they think politically.

I think his actions with his Supreme Court nominees seem to prove it.

 

[jrydberg]

Here's a couple of examples of gross incompetence, gross negligence and dereliction of duty and you tell me who/what/when/and where you saw another president do the same thing:

1) What president, other than Bush, went to a birthday party when a category 5 hurricane hit the gulf coast reducing it matchsticks? The gulf coast is home to most of the refineries in this country.

2) What president, other than Bush, played pretend guitar while New Orleans was filling up like a soup bowl?

Are you serious? He should be impeached because he went to a birthday party and played pretend guitar? Talk about bizarre.