CNN TV: Next Supreme Court Pick

[Zebo]

LOL freepers going nuts

"George W Bush is a pro-gay, pro-choice, fiscally irresponsible Saudi-loving Chinese Communist sympathizer. "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495751/posts?q=1&&page=1

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: BDawg

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.

Legislation from the bench or judicial activism is an excuse people throw out when they don't like a decision.

I'd personally rather have someone with judiciary experience than someone without. Sure, there's no requirement, but that doesn't mean you should go out of your way to pick a crony.

Funny I was watching on MSNBC and they said it could be good to have a fresh judge. What I have no Idea. I'd rather have a Conservative man/woman of color. Makes me laugh.

 

[joshw10]

I dont know anything about this candidate but I did hear some Democrats such as Reid saying they're very happy with this choice. Could it be they're just trying to play a trick on the pro-life base and get them all riled up over nothing?

 

[wiin]

She will be the next Justice, so get used to it. Expect the nuclear option if the Dems filibuster.

I don't think there is going to be a filibuster. She was recommended by Reid.

 

[azazyel]

You know maybe GWB should nominate H Clinton. It would surprise everyone and then she could never run for President and it would get her out of Congress.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
This is just more evidence of Bush's idiocy. Why would you pick someone without any judicial experience for the most important court in the United States? Perhaps she'd be a great nominee for a Federal District Court; no problem. But the U.S. Supreme Court? U.S. Supreme Court nominees should be judges who have years of experience having considered the nuances of U.S. Constitutional law, preferably judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals (the courts that are directly below the Supreme court) or judges from state supreme courts. A federal district court judge wouldn't be so awful, nor would an accomplished constitutional law scholar (law school professor specializing in constitutional law).

But choosing an attorney with zero judicial experience who hasn't really specialized in constutional law? It's almost like a deriliction of duty on Bush's part.

His choice of nominee is an insult to every judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and also to ever federal district judge. I hope the Senate shoots her down.

He views himself as a success story despite his short experience in public service, so why not?

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BBond

She has NEVER been a judge.

She HAS been Bush's personal attorney though so in Bush's view she's as qualified as say, Brownie was for FEMA director. It's all about who you know, not what you know with Bush. And that makes sense since Bush's qualifications have NOTHING to do with what HE knows.

Most justices in the history of the Supreme Court, including the late Justice Rehnquist, have had no judicial experience.

That is a pretty dubious qualification. I can't think of a more partisan CJ than Rhenquist or one who has contributed less to jurisprudence. Ever read one of his opinions?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: daveshel

That is a pretty dubious qualification. I can't think of a more partisan CJ than Rhenquist or one who has contributed less to jurisprudence. Ever read one of his opinions?

Quite a few when I was in law school; fewer since.

I didn't mean to raise Rehnquist as a paragon of excellence; just to point out that there is relatively recent precedent for appointing a non-judge. In this instance I can see why Ms. Miers gives conservatives pause, though; there's no way of knowing what she's about.

 

[Perknose]

She's never been married. Will Rick Santorum attempt to pin her down on the state of her chastity?

 

[stateofbeasley]

I saw on TV that Rush Limbaugh was going crazy with rage this morning, and that Dick Cheney had to call in to basically tell him to STFU.



With no history on any judicial bench, Harriet Miers is basically an "unopened present," much like David Souter and Anthony Kennedy were when they were nominated.

As the bad commando in Command&Conquer says: "I've got a present for you!"

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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.

You know, if what other people have been saying about her possibly being moderate, this just might be the strategy. Pick someone who is patently unqualified but who might be a moderate and let the opposition party and the populace shoot her down. Then pick the person you really want and say, "You had the opportunity to elect a more palatable candidate and then you shot her down."

Perhaps the Democrats really should call his bluff and vote for her. She'll be doing a heavy-duty study of Constitutional Law for the first couple years of her term. It's a broad subject with all sorts of nuances, ambiguities, and judicial precedent.

I suppose that most Supreme Court Justices conduct large amounts of specific research for each matter before them anyway before reaching a conclusion. But it sure would be easier and the decisions would be wiser if they were informed by years of heavy-duty Constitutional scholarship.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

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.

For all of their rhetoric, I wonder if, secretly, the Republican politicians really want abortion to continue to remain legal for the very reason you mentioned. If it became illegal they would slowly start to lose some of their base as lower class Republicans turned to other issues (<cough> <cough> the economy, mass immigration, foreign work visas) and the Democratic base would suddenly be filled with new energy, vigor, and passion, not to mention that many independents and moderates would turn to the Democrats.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
to be fair many Republicans do not support this president. how'd that SS reform go?

I"ve seen a couple Republicans say, "I disagree on the immigration issue, I support closed borders and the Minuteman Project" when I tell them that Bush loves the idea of mass immigration and global labor wage arbitrage. So perhaps there really is a hidden groundswell of silent opposition to him in the Republican Party.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Perknose
She's never been married. Will Rick Santorum attempt to pin her down on the state of her chastity?

Now that would be interesting! Supreme Court justice sex stories in the tabloids!

"She had an affair with her clerk..."

Even better...she became pregnant and chose to have an abortion (if she isn't too old).

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Perknose
She's never been married. Will Rick Santorum attempt to pin her down on the state of her chastity?

Hey that's an idea! If/since Santorum's Senate seat is truly in danger give him the nomination. He's only 47, and Reid has said he supports the nomination of several Republican Senators. The Democrats would never strongly oppose one of their colleagues.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: zendari

Hey that's an idea! If/since Santorum's Senate seat is truly in danger give him the nomination. He's only 47, and Reid has said he supports the nomination of several Republican Senators. The Democrats would never strongly oppose one of their colleagues.

LOL - not only would Democrats "strongly oppose one of their colleagues," but they'd be joined by a lot of Republicans IMO. Santorum only spent 4 years practicing law. By that standard, I'm nearly twice as qualified as he is!

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

Hey that's an idea! If/since Santorum's Senate seat is truly in danger give him the nomination. He's only 47, and Reid has said he supports the nomination of several Republican Senators. The Democrats would never strongly oppose one of their colleagues.

LOL - not only would Democrats "strongly oppose one of their colleagues," but they'd be joined by a lot of Republicans IMO. Santorum only spent 4 years practicing law. By that standard, I'm nearly twice as qualified as he is!

Maybe you should apply for the job. At least we know where you stand. But that's what Harry Reid suggested.

US Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has some suggestions for President Bush if he wants easy confirmation of his future nominee for an expected US Supreme Court vacancy. Reid said the key to winning an easy confirmation fight is select a conservative Republican US Senator who would draw broad consensus support

I'm beginning to wonder if the cronyism accusations from the left are true.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: zendari

Maybe you should apply for the job. At least we know where you stand. But that's what Harry Reid suggested.

US Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has some suggestions for President Bush if he wants easy confirmation of his future nominee for an expected US Supreme Court vacancy. Reid said the key to winning an easy confirmation fight is select a conservative Republican US Senator who would draw broad consensus support

I'm beginning to wonder if the cronyism accusations from the left are true.

I don't think Rick Santorum was what he had in mind, if he really said that. Actually I don't know of any US senators who are adequately qualified to serve on the Supreme Court - are there any with significant experience in academics, Con Law, appellate advocacy and/or judicial service?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

i'm going to reserve judgement about her until the hearings.

i will note i'm mildly amused at how conservatives are up in arms over this. their one chance to change the courts, Republican majority/president, and Bush nominates another moderate. well this is what you voted for, so enjoy it.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

Maybe you should apply for the job. At least we know where you stand. But that's what Harry Reid suggested.

US Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has some suggestions for President Bush if he wants easy confirmation of his future nominee for an expected US Supreme Court vacancy. Reid said the key to winning an easy confirmation fight is select a conservative Republican US Senator who would draw broad consensus support

I'm beginning to wonder if the cronyism accusations from the left are true.

I don't think Rick Santorum was what he had in mind, if he really said that. Actually I don't know of any US senators who are adequately qualified to serve on the Supreme Court - are there any with significant experience in academics, Con Law, appellate advocacy and/or judicial service?

Cornyn was on the Texas Supreme Court for 7 years. Text. And there are others.

IMO their qualifications are better than Miers, and being an elected official are all mostly in the mainsteam. To quote Michael Savage Bush might as well have chosen his gardener.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

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?

Quit filibustering whahhhhh.

Yup, Bush is a piece of sh!t. Why has it taken us this long to realize this?

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

Hey that's an idea! If/since Santorum's Senate seat is truly in danger give him the nomination. He's only 47, and Reid has said he supports the nomination of several Republican Senators. The Democrats would never strongly oppose one of their colleagues.

LOL - not only would Democrats "strongly oppose one of their colleagues," but they'd be joined by a lot of Republicans IMO. Santorum only spent 4 years practicing law. By that standard, I'm nearly twice as qualified as he is!

Maybe you should apply for the job. At least we know where you stand. But that's what Harry Reid suggested.

US Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has some suggestions for President Bush if he wants easy confirmation of his future nominee for an expected US Supreme Court vacancy. Reid said the key to winning an easy confirmation fight is select a conservative Republican US Senator who would draw broad consensus support

I'm beginning to wonder if the cronyism accusations from the left are true.

Damn, this must be bad if even Zendari's starting to crack.

 

[imported_Condor]

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?

Clinton was never a President before the Dims picked him, Bush was never a President before the people picked him. Did you have a point?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BDawg

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.

Legislation from the bench or judicial activism is an excuse people throw out when they don't like a decision.

I'd personally rather have someone with judiciary experience than someone without. Sure, there's no requirement, but that doesn't mean you should go out of your way to pick a crony.

You pick someone you trust. Who do you trust the most? Someone you have known for years. Say you would do it differently.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BBond
Oh, great, another Bush cronie.

Lots of us out here. We used to be called the silent majority before the Internet.