CNN TV: Next Supreme Court Pick

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: 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?

LMAO

 

[MicroChrome]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Congratulations, Harriet. She looks like a very nice lady.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/hmiers-bio.html

Yeah, thats what my Mom said about Bush... I say never judge a book by it's cover.

When I heard her talk on NPR I thought oh great... Down South. Nothing against them but the biggest bible belt is down there and I am sure this is all being played since after all, I'm sure bush ask's god who to choose.

Oh well, I've said it again, thanks bush you have taken this country back at least 15-20 years... Oh well. Sad for America.

 

[rahvin]

If you consider the context of history there have been far more supreme court justices that had no judicial experience than those that have. In fact many nominees had no legal experience whatsover.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: 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?

I'm hoping that "brilliant" was her way of describing Bush's brightly colored suit. If not, then that's just disgusting.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Hafen

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.

Only 6 Republicans voted against Bork in 1987. He could have put through anyone if he was willing too fight. John Roberts was a much better nominee and had greater public support than most public officials today. This woman is the definition of a crony.

If Miers turns out to be a liberal, his base will remember that in Nov. 2006 and it will hurt them at the polls.

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: 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.

This actually makes a bit of sense TlC. This pick is just too preposterous to be believed imo.

 

[themroc27]

hmmm...

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Hafen

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.

Only 6 Republicans voted against Bork in 1987. He could have put through anyone if he was willing too fight. John Roberts was a much better nominee and had greater public support than most public officials today. This woman is the definition of a crony.

If Miers turns out to be a liberal, his base will remember that in Nov. 2006 and it will hurt them at the polls.

Or who are they going to vote for? Liberals?
Elections are won in the middle. Piss off the moderates by seeming too extreme &/or corrupt and the Reps will start losing elections left and right (haha ) We're a 48-48 nation with the few ~3% pushing it either way.
Be careful or Bush could see a Dem controlled Congress for his last two yrs. he might as well just stay down in Crawford then. Things can flip fast, look what happened in '94.

 

[Ballsack]

Maybe somebody can explain to me why Republicans are up in arms about Miers. She is clearly not a liberal, and is seemingly enamored with both Bush and his policies. A quick glimpse at the Yahoo! News website shows the headline:

Bush pick for high court outrages conservatives

I thought this pick would outrage Democrats, as it might appear to them that Bush is simply appointing another of his cronies to a high government position.

BALLSACK

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: KevinH

Originally posted by: 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.

This actually makes a bit of sense TlC. This pick is just too preposterous to be believed imo.

That's a dangerous game tho. Dems may let it go so not to push thier luck as their tide is rising if she can't conclusively be shown to be radical (esp since she is a woman, a big +.)
Bush could then get stuck w/ a Judge he didn't want.....

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero

Originally posted by: BDawg
First, he picks a Chief Justice who's only been a judge for a few years, now a justice who's never been a judge at all.

What a great, partisan pick.

Maybe try picking someone who's been a lifelong judge and not a Republican party hired gun?

Whatever happened to uniter, not a divider?

Roberts is a staple in and out of the supreme court. Not sure about this pick though. There is, however, no requirement that the nominee be a judge. Maybe its better to get someone who isn't tainted by the politics of the system where legislation from the bench has gone amok.

THere's no requirement to even be a lawyer to be on the nations highest court (that's the United States Supreme COurt for those of you in Rio Linda)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Ballsack
Maybe somebody can explain to me why Republicans are up in arms about Miers. She is clearly not a liberal, and is seemingly enamored with both Bush and his policies. A quick glimpse at the Yahoo! News website shows the headline:

Bush pick for high court outrages conservatives

I thought this pick would outrage Democrats, as it might appear to them that Bush is simply appointing another of his cronies to a high government position.

BALLSACK

Conservatives are upset because Miers is a darkhorse. They don't know much about her and don't see her as the staunch conservative that was promised.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Ballsack
Maybe somebody can explain to me why Republicans are up in arms about Miers. She is clearly not a liberal, and is seemingly enamored with both Bush and his policies. A quick glimpse at the Yahoo! News website shows the headline:

Bush pick for high court outrages conservatives

I thought this pick would outrage Democrats, as it might appear to them that Bush is simply appointing another of his cronies to a high government position.

BALLSACK

Clearly not a liberal based on what? We know she's donated to Gore and that Harry Reid likes her.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: zendari

Only 6 Republicans voted against Bork in 1987. He could have put through anyone if he was willing too fight. John Roberts was a much better nominee and had greater public support than most public officials today. This woman is the definition of a crony.

If Miers turns out to be a liberal, his base will remember that in Nov. 2006 and it will hurt them at the polls.

Or who are they going to vote for? Liberals?
Elections are won in the middle. Piss off the moderates by seeming too extreme &/or corrupt and the Reps will start losing elections left and right (haha ) We're a 48-48 nation with the few ~3% pushing it either way.
Be careful or Bush could see a Dem controlled Congress for his last two yrs. he might as well just stay down in Crawford then. Things can flip fast, look what happened in '94.

Clinton sent up a former ACLU lawyer and he won reelection. This is an OK pick later on for future vacancies under a Democratic congress, not when you have 55 votes.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Ballsack
Maybe somebody can explain to me why Republicans are up in arms about Miers. She is clearly not a liberal, and is seemingly enamored with both Bush and his policies. A quick glimpse at the Yahoo! News website shows the headline:

Bush pick for high court outrages conservatives

I thought this pick would outrage Democrats, as it might appear to them that Bush is simply appointing another of his cronies to a high government position.

BALLSACK

The White House noted some Democrats had urged Bush to consider the Dallas-born Miers but would give no names. One of those, however, was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

"I like Harriet Miers," said Reid, who had voted against John Roberts as U.S. chief justice in Roberts' confirmation vote last week. "In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."

This could shape up to be a big 3-sided win for the Left. The court retains its balance, it pisses off the RRR, & Bush looks weak by backing down on a fight he made big promises about.

 

[Ballsack]

Originally posted by: zendari
Clearly not a liberal based on what? We know she's donated to Gore and that Harry Reid likes her.

I don't think Reid necessarily "likes" her, but he did suggest that he consider her for the post. Besides, this may be an attempt by Bush to reach across the isle, and try for once to be a uniter rather than a divider. How is this a bad thing?

BALLSACK

edit: ok, after reading the post above me, I realize that Reid does like her.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: zendari

Only 6 Republicans voted against Bork in 1987. He could have put through anyone if he was willing too fight. John Roberts was a much better nominee and had greater public support than most public officials today. This woman is the definition of a crony.

If Miers turns out to be a liberal, his base will remember that in Nov. 2006 and it will hurt them at the polls.

Or who are they going to vote for? Liberals?
Elections are won in the middle. Piss off the moderates by seeming too extreme &/or corrupt and the Reps will start losing elections left and right (haha ) We're a 48-48 nation with the few ~3% pushing it either way.
Be careful or Bush could see a Dem controlled Congress for his last two yrs. he might as well just stay down in Crawford then. Things can flip fast, look what happened in '94.

Clinton sent up a former ACLU lawyer and he won reelection. This is an OK pick later on for future vacancies under a Democratic congress, not when you have 55 votes.

But Bush is not up for re-election. But his congress is next year, and they are not so popular recently and there are number who are upset w/ the pres's policies. Again, CYA 1st.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: KevinH

Originally posted by: 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.

This actually makes a bit of sense TlC. This pick is just too preposterous to be believed imo.

That's a dangerous game tho. Dems may let it go so not to push thier luck as their tide is rising if she can't conclusively be shown to be radical (esp since she is a woman, a big +.)
Bush could then get stuck w/ a Judge he didn't want.....

I doubt this is a pick that Bush doesn't want, she's just not his first pick. He'll take her just fine if she's gets the vote.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: KevinH

Originally posted by: 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.

This actually makes a bit of sense TlC. This pick is just too preposterous to be believed imo.

That's a dangerous game tho. Dems may let it go so not to push thier luck as their tide is rising if she can't conclusively be shown to be radical (esp since she is a woman, a big +.)
Bush could then get stuck w/ a Judge he didn't want.....

I doubt this is a pick that Bush doesn't want, she's just not his first pick. He'll take her just fine if she's gets the vote.

That I completely agree with.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Ballsack

Originally posted by: zendari
Clearly not a liberal based on what? We know she's donated to Gore and that Harry Reid likes her.

I don't think Reid necessarily "likes" her, but he did suggest that he consider her for the post. Besides, this may be an attempt by Bush to reach across the isle, and try for once to be a uniter rather than a divider. How is this a bad thing?

He tried that with John Roberts and got 22 no votes. The far left opposes anything he does. After 2 moderate consensus picks we will see exactly how much the left supports this President. Take a look at this thread.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

to be fair many Republicans do not support this president. how'd that SS reform go?

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Ballsack

Originally posted by: zendari
Clearly not a liberal based on what? We know she's donated to Gore and that Harry Reid likes her.

I don't think Reid necessarily "likes" her, but he did suggest that he consider her for the post. Besides, this may be an attempt by Bush to reach across the isle, and try for once to be a uniter rather than a divider. How is this a bad thing?

He tried that with John Roberts and got 22 no votes. The far left opposes anything he does. After 2 moderate consensus picks we will see exactly how much the left supports this President. Take a look at this thread.

Is the glass half-full or empty? By the same account Roberts got half "yea" votes from the Dems, which considering his strong conservative background is quite good.

You'll never get all the votes. The whole vote was very calculated. There are some who had to vote no in regards to their homestate (ie NE'ers esp) or in regards to possible pres campaigns to satisfy the base. The other half was directed to vote "yea" to be seen as skeptical but not obstructionist. All in all it was well played by the Dems. They saved as much face as possible.

 

[Moonbeam]

I heard she is deeply ethical. If true I don't care about much else.

 

[azazyel]

This is what the National Review has to say...

"Being a Bush loyalist and friend is not a qualification for the Supreme Court. She may have been the best pick from within Bush?s inner circle. It seems impossible to maintain that she was the best pick from any larger field. It seems highly unlikely that she will be the kind of justice who, in combination with Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, will attract additional votes by the sheer force of her arguments. This nomination was a missed opportunity."

http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200510031341.asp

I thought that was pretty funny, maybe bush is a uniter after all.

Oh, and today's column by Pat Buchanan is golden..(doesn't talk about the nomination)

http://www.theamericancause.org/

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Ballsack
Maybe somebody can explain to me why Republicans are up in arms about Miers. She is clearly not a liberal, and is seemingly enamored with both Bush and his policies. A quick glimpse at the Yahoo! News website shows the headline:

Bush pick for high court outrages conservatives

I thought this pick would outrage Democrats, as it might appear to them that Bush is simply appointing another of his cronies to a high government position.

BALLSACK

The White House noted some Democrats had urged Bush to consider the Dallas-born Miers but would give no names. One of those, however, was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

"I like Harriet Miers," said Reid, who had voted against John Roberts as U.S. chief justice in Roberts' confirmation vote last week. "In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."

This could shape up to be a big 3-sided win for the Left. The court retains its balance, it pisses off the RRR, & Bush looks weak by backing down on a fight he made big promises about.

If reid likes her this can only mean she isnt conservative enough for the conservatives who voted for Bush and the Republicans.

Political suicide among the core if you ask me.