CNN TV: Next Supreme Court Pick

[conjur]

And look who has donated to DeLay's Legal Expense Fund (Locke, Liddell & Sapp):

http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/delay.asp

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: conjur
And look who has donated to DeLay's Legal Expense Fund (Locke, Liddell & Sapp):

http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/delay.asp

Does Ms. Miers even have any role in the firm anymore? She has apparently not worked there in several years.

 

[Strk]

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 Supreme 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?

That wasn't set by Roberts.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: conjur
And look who has donated to DeLay's Legal Expense Fund (Locke, Liddell & Sapp):

http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/delay.asp

Does Ms. Miers even have any role in the firm anymore? She has apparently not worked there in several years.

"*Based on reports filed with the House Legislative Resource Center covering the period 7/1/00 to 12/31/01."

She worked there until she was selected to be Staff Secretary in the White House.

Also, there's this:

Looks like Harriet's the one who recommended "Torture" Gonzales
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=archives&month=2&year=2005

Alberto Gonzales was recommended to Bush as counsel in the Texas Governorship by Harriet Miers, who has replaced Gonzales as White House counsel. Referred to by Bush as a "pit bull in size 6 shoes'', Miers is a former President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell and former chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission. Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell have given at least $65,000 to Bush campaigns and are major backers of tort reform. One case involved a unique law - passed under former Gov. George Bush - that blocked Texas consumers from recovering $6 billion in overcharges on car loans and allowed dealers to keep kickbacks secret. Two consumer groups have called on the Texas Legislature to repeal it. Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell were defendants of the litigation, which included auto dealers in Texas . Miers was also Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission and responsible for a chain of events involving GTech, which ran the Texas Lottery, former Lt. Governor Ben Barnes, and accusations of kick-backs and illegal contracts. Yes, that Ben Barnes, who says he helped George Bush get into the National Guard. His original deposition on that subject was given in 1999, during this Texas Lottery Commission investigation, and has been permanently sealed.

Harriett Miers was the one to scrub Shrub's National Guard record?
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=171

And this:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=231

Miers is a Dallas-based lawyer and chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission. The former president of the State Bar of Texas and Dallas City Council member has done legal work for Bush and his political committee. As chair of the lottery commission, Miers came under fire when former commission executive director Lawrence Littwin sued the state's lottery operator, GTECH, for allegedly pressuring Miers to fire Littwin. Littwin and his attorneys have suggested throughout the proceedings that GTECH was allowed to keep its state lottery contract in exchange for former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes' silence. Barnes, a former GTECH lobbyist, stated under oath that he helped George W. Bush enlist in the Texas Air National Guard as an alternative to going to Vietnam 31 years ago.

Yeah...this isn't an example of cronyism. Not at all.

 

[BlueWeasel]

GWB: You've done a fine job down in Texas, Miersy.....so I'm going to nominate you to the Supreme Court

:roll:

 

[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.

 

[halik]

Roberts is a bright man with a lot of experience... I don't really care for the partisan bulsh!t, so i don't have problems with it. Only fool would think that Bush would appoint anyone remotely liberal.

The second nomination is bit off the wall .... someone that has no judiciary experience probably shouldn't be in supreme court...

 

[dardin211]

Why pick the most qualified person when you can pick friends instead. It worked so well for FEMA.

 

[Czar]

Could anyone tell me what makes her more qualified than the next person?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Czar
Could anyone tell me what makes her more qualified than the next person?

This?


Harriet Miers slept at Governor Bush's Mansion for $23,628.00
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.poli...+miers&rnum=148&hl=en#f2978d4804c86139

83 Miers, Harriet $23,628.00

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Czar
Could anyone tell me what makes her more qualified than the next person?

This?


Harriet Miers slept at Governor Bush's Mansion for $23,628.00
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.poli...+miers&rnum=148&hl=en#f2978d4804c86139

83 Miers, Harriet $23,628.00

in some fantasy world then yes that would count as a qualification, but most of us dont live in that world

 

[EagleKeeper]

By not selecting a active justice, there is no track record to complain/tear apart.

Reduces the partisan target area.

The Dems can not scream minority; therefore the area is again made smaller.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Czar
Could anyone tell me what makes her more qualified than the next person?

This?


Harriet Miers slept at Governor Bush's Mansion for $23,628.00
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.poli...+miers&rnum=148&hl=en#f2978d4804c86139

83 Miers, Harriet $23,628.00

You can take comfort when the next president bush is elected in 2008.

 

[conjur]

:shocked:

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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

They only need to scream, "unqualified!".

 

[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 judge?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

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!".

I think this is one nomination in which her qualifications are, in all fairness, open to some doubt. I don't see how any sane person without a strong bias could seriously have questioned John Roberts' qualifications, but Ms. Miers is more of an open question. I guess we'll see.

 

[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.

 

[GoPackGo]

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.

She just does not seem qualified to be a judge on the highest court in the land.

Bush doesn't even try to look outside his inner circus...oops i mean circle.

 

[Pepsei]

i have no problem with this pick, i was actually expecting someone even worse..... maybe that's why.

hell, many great judges in the past have no judicial experiences.... i wonder if she's pro choice....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur
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.

She just does not seem qualified to be a judge on the highest court in the land.

Bush doesn't even try to look outside his inner circus...oops i mean circle.

I think it goes to the President's mental malady, whatever it is. There's certainly something wrong with the man. He cannot be around people that aren't beyond loyal to him. He's really not far off from the mindset that Saddam had when he ruled. No bad news was to be brought to him. Hell, didn't Salazar just call Bush a "king"?

 

[Ferocious]

Like I've said before, this generation deserves to suffer for allowing Bush to be elected.

It's just so unfortunate that future generations who had no say will have to suffer as well.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
i have no problem with this pick, i was actually expecting someone even worse..... maybe that's why.

hell, many great judges in the past have no judicial experiences.... i wonder if she's pro choice....

We'll see, but I find it unlikely that Bush would dissapoint his party by nominating someone that is pro-choice.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Pepsei
i have no problem with this pick, i was actually expecting someone even worse..... maybe that's why.

hell, many great judges in the past have no judicial experiences.... i wonder if she's pro choice....

We'll see, but I find it unlikely that Bush would dissapoint his party by nominating someone that is pro-choice.

You never know though. But I have a feeling that was the clincher for not nominating Gonzales.

Either way, this is no surprise. It was either going to be a minority, a woman or both.

 

[2Xtreme21]

This drives me up a wall. You know she's going to slide her way through the Senate due to the 100% partisanship going on in there these days. I agree, Roberts wasn't a bad choice at all. This lady, however, is just going to be a way for Bush to exert his "legacy" many years following his presidency.