CNN TV: Next Supreme Court Pick

[BlueWeasel]

From Miers' Wikipedia entry:

According to Salon Magazine on Oct. 3, 2005, Miers has called President Bush "the most brilliant man I have ever met."

:laugh:

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: EagleKeeperThe Dems can not scream minority; therefore the area is again made smaller.

They only need to scream, "unqualified!".

Most of the Dems pols may be unqualified also; but their constituents keep electing them because of loyalty and bringing home the pork.

Where are the qualifications spelled out for a Supreme Court judge?

Added in the proper qualifier (since we are talking of qualifications).

And, what would be a qualification for a Supreme Court Judge nominee?

Oh, I dunno...maybe having actually been a judge instead of a personal lawyer to the president (back when he was governor)? That would be a start.

subjective vs objective.

Again, where is it layed out the qualifications to be a judge? Be it a local circuit court or USSC.

I have not read about in the constitution that one must be a sitting judge for x years on a certain court level.

The president is empowered to nomimate and the Senate is supposed to advise (not dictate)

 

[Moonbeam]

"The president is empowered to nomimate and the Senate is supposed to advise (not dictate)"

You should talk with Judge Bork about that.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: EagleKeeperThe Dems can not scream minority; therefore the area is again made smaller.

They only need to scream, "unqualified!".

Most of the Dems pols may be unqualified also; but their constituents keep electing them because of loyalty and bringing home the pork.

Where are the qualifications spelled out for a Supreme Court judge?

Added in the proper qualifier (since we are talking of qualifications).

And, what would be a qualification for a Supreme Court Judge nominee?

Oh, I dunno...maybe having actually been a judge instead of a personal lawyer to the president (back when he was governor)? That would be a start.

subjective vs objective.

Again, where is it layed out the qualifications to be a judge? Be it a local circuit court or USSC.

I have not read about in the constitution that one must be a sitting judge for x years on a certain court level.

The president is empowered to nomimate and the Senate is supposed to advise (not dictate)

Sure, there's nothing dictating the qualifications for being a judge. But common sense tells you that certain training and experience would improve ones chance at performing well as a SC judge. To take it to the extreme, I would not nominate a person that has spent their career as a legal secretary to be a supreme court judge. There is no rule against it, but it would be unwise. So its not unreasonable to question the qualifications of a person being considered to be a judge on the highest court in our country when they have never served as a judge in their life. Just as we value some leadership and governing eperience in our president, most reasonable people would place value on experience being a judge when looking for a judge. This doesn't main she can't be the SC judge, but its a reasonable basis for questions as to her ability to perform the job of a SC judge well.

And, yes, Iwould agree that the president can nominate whom he chooses, but that doesn't put his choice above scrutiny or criticism.

 

[zendari]

I hope she is rejected. Nobody knows a thing about this lady. Plus she is old.

Welcome Souter 2.0.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: zendari
I hope she is rejected. Nobody knows a thing about this lady.

Welcome Souter 2.0.

Bush does. He knows her quite well.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: zendari
I hope she is rejected. Nobody knows a thing about this lady. Plus she is old.

Welcome Souter 2.0.

I would have thought this would be enough for you:

From Miers' Wikipedia entry:

According to Salon Magazine on Oct. 3, 2005, Miers has called President Bush "the most brilliant man I have ever met."

As for her age, you won't find too many of your teenage contemporaries who are in contention for a place on the Supreme Court.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: zendari
I hope she is rejected. Nobody knows a thing about this lady.

Welcome Souter 2.0.

Bush does. He knows her quite well.

which only makes this look worse

 

[CaptnKirk]

A Supreme Court Justice has only one job to do:

use their knowledge, experience, and wisdom to interpret the intent of the Constitution as it applies to cases that it takes for review.

NOT to say to themselves, 'How would Dubya want me to rule on this case".

This really does appear to be a Trojan Horse that he's counting on getting through - just because he has a GOP House & Senate.
He's betting that his 'personal nanny' cannot be shot down.

He could have nominated Howard Stearn . . . or Michael Jackson . . . even OJ !

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: DonVito

As for her age, you won't find too many of your teenage contemporaries who are in contention for a place on the Supreme Court.

There were plenty of more qualified judges 10-15 years younger with a better conservative record. He caved in to the Dems.

Supposedly this woman has donated money to Al Gore.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: DonVito
She seems to me like a strange pick, and I'll be interested in how the ABA rates her qualifications. She has been an extremely successful as an attorney, including running the largest law firm in Texas, but that doesn't imply a lot of experience as a litigator - I have no idea whether she has much experience in that arena, or expertise in constitutional law.

She may be a solid pick, but she seems marginally qualified, and nobody seems toknow a lot about her. This may be an odd confirmation process, because I doubt she will get strong support from either party, outside the support Republicans feel obligated to give.

I was listening to an interview w/ Nina Tottenburg and she was speculating her nomination was a result of having few other choices. Part of this got screwed w/ O'Connor retiring, and Roberts was an effort to bring a more conservative in. With him replacing Renq. instead, it ended up being a net 0 on the partisan scale for the court however. Now Bush has to nominate someone again for O'Connor and there is strong pressure not to nominate a white male.
Bush is is a much weaker position than he was when he nominated Roberts (thx to Brownie,) so some of the women he would have liked to nominate would have been too controversial. The WH was floundering (they have known about this for months) & in a Cheneyesque move, she was nominated. We'll she what comes out..

She was the pres of the Texas Bar assoc. also BTW. They were also discussing that her not being a judge previously is not so common lately, but over the history of the court this really has not been an issue. What concerns me is is that it may be very difficult to determine her judicial temperment and the Reps will just stonewall her all the way into the Court with no one really knowing a damn thing about her.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: techs
The precedent set by Roberts comes home to roost. By allowing Roberts to decide what questions he would and would not answer, we now have a Supremem Court candidate with no record who will tell us only what she wants.
And it is likely the Republicans will demand her confirmation anyway.
Isn't it screwey to appoint someone for life based on no record?

I am a liberal, but thought Justice Roberts was perfectly appropriate in the confirmation hearings. I guess it's because I'm a lawyer, but it makes perfect sense to me that a nominee would refuse to prejudge cases during the confirmation process. It's frankly not appropriate, IMO, for a judge to start announcing how he would decide cases when he has no real-world facts or procedural history to rely on.

I wasn't talking about that. However, I think its perfectly valid to ask a nominees opinion and thinking of past SC decisions.
While Roberts did not start the policy of deciding which questions to answer he did expand it to the point where there were few questions that could even be asked of him that would give us an idea of his thinking which he would answer.

See... The problem is that the confirmation process isn't supposed to be about a candidate's political leanings. It's supposed to be about their qualifications for the post. Imagine if you went for a job interview and in addition to your resume you had to defend your personal and political beliefs.

I don't know the first thing about this woman other than she's the president's council and was a democrat in the 80's and donated money to Gore's campaign when he ran against Dubbya. I have no idea how she'll rule on any particular issue. But she shouldn't answer any questions that require her to prejudge an issue that may come before the court.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DonVito

As for her age, you won't find too many of your teenage contemporaries who are in contention for a place on the Supreme Court.

There were plenty of more qualified judges 10-15 years younger with a better conservative record. He caved in to the Dems.

Supposedly this woman has donated money to Al Gore.

Heh heh. I think her age may be a good thing. If Bush couldn't nominate some one more surely right, its because he's screwed himself so much lately and lost popular support. He's lucky he even has a Rep Senate or he may have had to concede even more.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

imo, Bush is chumming the partisan water with this pick. He really doesn't expect her to get the nod, but he knows that the Dems were going to fight tooth and nail this time around no matter who he selected. So he tosses Miers out there to allow the Democrats to knock themselves silly over refusing her and will subsequently nominate his real first choice next, after Miers is refused. She's a sacrificial lamb.

 

[Pepsei]

she donated money to Gore? wow, I didn't know that..... even better I guess.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Heh heh. I think her age may be a good thing. If Bush couldn't nominate some one more surely right, its because he's screwed himself so much lately and lost popular support. He's lucky he even has a Rep Senate or he may have had to concede even more.

You don't need popular support. You only need 51 votes.

His approval ratings are going to fall further now that he's turned on his base.

If she and Roberts, both with limited records, are both Scalia types Bush is a brilliant man, but I somehow doubt that.

 

[Zebo]

You guys asking about abortion.. It appears you're SOL. Both Jay Sekulow (lead coucil for pro-life ACLJ) and his Catholic counterpart John Leo love her.

 

[dawheat]

FYI from Wikipedia:

The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court. However, Presidents normally nominate individuals who have prior legal experience. Typically, most nominees have previous judicial experience, either at the federal or state level. Several nominees have formerly served on federal Courts of Appeals, especially the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Another source of Supreme Court nominees is the federal executive branch?in particular, the Department of Justice. Other potential nominees include members of Congress and academics. On the current Supreme Court, seven Justices previously served on federal courts (including three on the D.C. Circuit); two served on state courts; three were former law school professors; and three held full time positions in the federal executive branch.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: conjur
Tim Russert called her the "Cheney pick". She's close with Cheney, esp. during his time when he was looking for a V.P. nominee (and decided on himself).

Since she's part of the WH counsel, I wonder what her part was in the torture memo?

i thought it was the cheney pick because of the whole cheney was picked to head up the search for a running mate, much like she was picked to search for the supreme court.

 

[kage69]

Oh fantastic. Another Brown-esque bullsh!t appointment in the making. Unsurprisingly, Bush didn't catch, or doesn't care, about the impact job experience has. I don't care which little niche in the political spectrum you claim as yours, all Americans should be able to agree that positions of this magnitude and responsibility shouldn't be filled with untested individuals, PERIOD. The American people have neither the time nor the money to deal with bullsh!t like this, especially considering recent events! :disgust:

It's shameful. We either have the poorest excuse for a President ever, or he isn't running the show at all.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You guys asking about abortion.. It appears you're SOL. Both Jay Sekulow (lead coucil for pro-life ACLJ) and his Catholic counterpart John Leo love her.

The abortion issues makes waaaaay too much money for the RNC. There's no way in hell they're going to let go of that cash cow.

 

[tommywishbone]

She was in charge the Texas State Lottery for a while. Sort of a bingo caller I guess. Excellent. Roberts was an OK choice, Meyers ain't going nowhere near the SC.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Hafen

Heh heh. I think her age may be a good thing. If Bush couldn't nominate some one more surely right, its because he's screwed himself so much lately and lost popular support. He's lucky he even has a Rep Senate or he may have had to concede even more.

You don't need popular support. You only need 51 votes.

His approval ratings are going to fall further now that he's turned on his base.

If she and Roberts, both with limited records, are both Scalia types Bush is a brilliant man, but I somehow doubt that.

Ah, its not quite so simple as that. The president needs popular support for two reasons: A strong president can push the Senate to follow his agenda. With low pop support, moderate R senators may be willing to fight Bush to please their local constituencies, or at least not so willing to hitch themselves to his sinking ship if he would nominate somebody controversial (esp w/ big election in '06).
To be safe you need 60 votes, and popular support of the public to prevail in the PR fight afterwards. An unpopular president may not be able to turn the "obstructionist" card on the Dems, but may popularly suffer the label as nominating a crony/incompetant/ or radical. In such as case, Dems could win points by blocking the "bad" choice and force a more moderate nominee as the next pick. Not to mention it would also harm the senators who voted for such a pick.
Just after 9/11, Bush could have nominated Pol Pot and been able to ram him thru. Now is going to be really tough for Bush facing a skeptical public.

 

[techs]

According to Salon Magazine on Oct. 3, 2005, Miers has called President Bush "the most brilliant man I have ever met

There's a reason to reject her. She needs to get out more.
Has anyone ever heard Bush described this way?

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: kage69
Oh fantastic. Another Brown-esque bullsh!t appointment in the making. Unsurprisingly, Bush didn't catch, or doesn't care, about the impact job experience has. I don't care which little niche in the political spectrum you claim as yours, all Americans should be able to agree that positions of this magnitude and responsibility shouldn't be filled with untested individuals, PERIOD. The American people have neither the time nor the money to deal with bullsh!t like this, especially considering recent events! :disgust:

It's shameful. We either have the poorest excuse for a President ever, or he isn't running the show at all.

Its not like she is FOB. She has plenty of legal experience, just not as a judge but tat has never been a requirement or neccess comonplace in the history of the court. Untested maybe, but the vetting we should woory about.