URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID6
Thread Number: 22510
[ Go back to previous page ]
Original Message
"Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by AyaK on 10-03-05 at 11:52 AM
Fascinating -- four chances to make a Supreme Court pick, and the Bushes dropped the ball on three of them (Souter, Thomas and now Miers):

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/scotus.miers/

The only competent pick made by a Bush was John Roberts.

Seriously, I'm sure Harriet Miers is a good "pit bull," as Bush once called her, but I have to side with Manuel Miranda here:

"The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas who had been the president's lawyer," said conservative activist Manuel Miranda of the Third Branch Conference, referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson's pick to the high court in the 1960s.

"The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it. However, the president deserves the benefit of a doubt, the nominee deserves the benefit of hearings, and every nominee deserves an up-or-down vote."

Miranda, an HLS graduate, is being too kind when he limits the criticism of Miers as unqualified to conservatives. With all of the talented lawyers on federal courts, this yaboo is the person Bush thinks is the best choice?

We could dream that, on an "up-or-down vote," it would be a "down" vote, couldn't we?

Table of contents
Messages in this discussion
"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by geg6 on 10-03-05 at 12:09 PM
>Fascinating -- four chances to make
>a Supreme Court pick, and
>the Bushes dropped the ball
>on three of them (Souter,
>Thomas and now Miers):

Well, we're talking the Bushes here. Not the brightest bulbs in the pack.

>"The nomination of a nominee with
>no judicial record is a
>significant failure for the advisers
>that the White House gathered
>around it. However, the president
>deserves the benefit of a
>doubt, the nominee deserves the
>benefit of hearings, and every
>nominee deserves an up-or-down vote."

First, is it possible he chose her because she has no judicial record to be challenged or questioned? Well, he probably didn't come up with that idea, but it's possible Cheney/Rove did, right? Second, she was the one running the whole search. Just like when Cheney ran the whole vetting of the Shrub's running mate search. Just one of those things that make me go, "hmmmmmm."

>Miranda, an HLS graduate, is being
>too kind when he limits
>the criticism of Miers as
>unqualified to conservatives. With
>all of the talented lawyers
>on federal courts, this yaboo
>is the person Bush thinks
>is the best choice?

No, it's the one the White House thinks cannot be pinned down to a record, thus thwarting the Democrats. Or something like that.


I'm such a slut for the blues.

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by Skiver on 10-03-05 at 12:10 PM
She is known for her devotion to Bush, and once called him "The most brilliant man I have ever met". That to me seems like qualification enough for the current administration.



Sig by Cygnus X1

"My thoughts are, we're going to get somebody who knows what they're talking about when it comes to rebuilding cities." - GW Bush

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by Spidey on 10-03-05 at 12:11 PM
Dood. We read the same sites.

What a surprise.


Not.

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by Skiver on 10-03-05 at 12:24 PM
It is actually that Al Franken's researchers read the same sites as you! He quoted from a blog entry from National Review Online of the conservative writer David Frum, former Whitehouse speech writer, to whom she had made the comment.



Sig by Cygnus X1

"Fool me once, shame on... Shame on you. Fool me twice... Can't get fooled again." - GW Bush

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by Spidey on 10-03-05 at 12:11 PM
I read somewhere on the internet today that Miers once called GWB the "most brilliant man I have ever met."

Unqualified for the high court, indeed.

Do you think it's possible that the Republicans will vote her down, perhaps as a way to distance themselves from the crumbling empire?


"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 10-03-05 at 12:19 PM
I read somewhere on the internet today that Miers once called GWB the "most brilliant man I have ever met."

Is she a former day care provider?


I'm nuts for Nutz ... and Syren too.
journal

Or a shut-in? Gimme her address and my church can send cards and stop by with banana bread.

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by KeithFan on 10-04-05 at 09:06 AM
Being a little hard on day care providers aren't we?

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by LibraRising on 10-03-05 at 12:11 PM
I got a little scared when I read she worked with Exodus, but it turns out it's a prison program, not the brainwashing program for gay kids.


A Nutzy/IceCat masterpiece.

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by Estee on 10-03-05 at 12:55 PM
LAST EDITED ON 10-03-05 AT 01:00 PM (EST)

Actually, it's the 'Get all the Jews out of the country' program. Or Bible chapter. I always get the two confused.

I think our dear POTUS is at the point where he really doesn't care what the standard qualifications for a position are -- as long as the person fills the One And Only Qualification For A Bush Appointee. 'Will this person do everything I tell them to do without questioning anything?' If the answer is Yes, nominate/hire/hand Big Shiny Candy-Red Button to.

ETA: I'm now stuck with a picture of the President repeatedly hitting the nominee over the head with his buttocks while screaming 'Push the Abortion Repeal button! PUSH IT!'

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by J Slice on 10-03-05 at 08:36 PM
Hooooly crap.

Ren and Stimpy...

my childhood... flashing before my eyes.


Oh so sanguine since 1984

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by Bobdechemist on 10-03-05 at 12:16 PM
She doesn't really seem to have any record, does she? It's odd because none of the stories seem to talk about her. Was she a completly unexpected choice? I get the impression the media doesn't have the prewritten copy on her that usually gets stuck on the end of these stories.

Unrelated, but in the CNN photo did anyone look at Bush and think "Man, he looks stoned" and who is that person from "Attack of the living dead" in front of him?
Was that just me?
"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 10-03-05 at 12:32 PM
Unrelated, but in the CNN photo did anyone look at Bush and think "Man, he looks stoned" and who is that person from "Attack of the living dead" in front of him? Was that just me?

I think that you've been reading the National Enquirer too much, Bob. (Then again, I have a renewed curiosity in the rumor that some of their stories about "celebrities" contain a kernel of truth.)

Personally, if one of the Golden Girls is going to become a Supreme, I would much prefer Dorothy over Blanche.


I'm nuts for Nutz ... and Syren too.
journal

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by LibraRising on 10-03-05 at 12:36 PM
Just as long as it isn't Rose. We don't need her looking to that wacky St. Olaf constitution for interpretation of the law.


I don't care what happened to Hans Gertinschlugen's three-legged blind pig. I'm not wearing the hat with the horns on it.

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 10-03-05 at 12:59 PM
I would have thought that Sofia most shared Shrub's worldview. Why did he nominate the slutty one instead?


I'm nuts for Nutz ... and Syren too.
journal

Witty remarks like that only fuel my crush from afar!

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by LibraRising on 10-03-05 at 01:52 PM
I could make a incredibly tasteless joke here about Reagan and Estelle Getty, but I'll abstain. For Estelle Getty's sake.


A Nutzy/IceCat masterpiece.

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 10-03-05 at 02:04 PM
Why? Estelle Getty was famous for never holding anything back on the show.

And? My vote is on Rose as being the best fit for Shrub, considering their astuteness on everything being equal.



Scratch and sniff
"Tsk, tsk. Pepe's messing with the newbies again." Spidey, 3/30/05

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 10-03-05 at 02:09 PM
IRL, Getty has been suffering from Parkinson's Disease for a decade. The health effects, including her ability to make coherent decisions, may closely replicate Reagan's decline, a decline that many suspect was taking place while he was still in office.


I'm nuts for Nutz ... and Syren too.
journal

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 10-03-05 at 02:13 PM
Wasn't aware of that, thanks for bringing me up to date on Estelle Getty's condition.

Even so, she might have been proud to know that people weren't holding back on her behalf, if she could be aware of it.



Scratch and sniff
"Tsk, tsk. Pepe's messing with the newbies again." Spidey, 3/30/05

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by LibraRising on 10-03-05 at 02:28 PM
She's also been suffering from severe dementia in the last few years. Her fellow Golden Girls say they've gone to visit her, and she has no idea who they are.

It had started when she was on the show, as she trouble remembering her lines and often needed cue cards. If you watch the reruns, you can see her struggling sometimes, particularly in her long speeches, but she managed to make that part of her character to mask it.


A Nutzy/IceCat masterpiece.

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by Tahj on 10-03-05 at 01:01 PM
My GOD Blanche, is that Harriet's mascara or is she getting ready for Halloween?!?


Moves courtesy of Syren

"Pretty much"
Posted by AyaK on 10-03-05 at 01:22 PM
Was she a completly unexpected choice? I get the impression the media doesn't have the prewritten copy on her that usually gets stuck on the end of these stories.

Not completely unexpected. She was mentioned prominently as the leading candidate in the NY Times profile last Thursday:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/12770486.htm

Start with 2nd paragraph: One name that was the source of enormous speculation in Washington legal and political circles was Harriet Miers, the White House counsel, who is a leader in the search for O'Connor's successor. Miers, 60, was the first woman to become a partner at a major Texas law firm and the first woman to be president of the State Bar of Texas. At one point, Miers was Bush's personal lawyer.

In 1995, then-Gov. Bush named her chair of the Texas Lottery Commission and gave her the task of cleaning up that scandal-plagued agency. Miers has never been a judge, although that is not a requirement for a Supreme Court justice.

Miers was also a leader in the search that led Bush to Judge John G. Roberts Jr., who is widely expected to be confirmed by the Senate as chief justice today.

Republicans cautioned that Miers was just one in a swirling mix of perhaps 12 possibilities and that she could be the subject of the same kind of assumptions that led much of Washington to conclude in July that Judge Edith Brown Clement of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was Bush's choice for the court only hours before he named Roberts.

I think NBC's Jonathan Turley had the best take on Miers' credentials:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9578821/
"There have been people who have gone to the court who have not been judges. The difference is that William Rehnquist (the last such justice to be nominated without having been a judge) had served in various high-level positions within the administration," Turley said. "Someone like Abe Fortas, who was the personal attorney to President Johnson, had handled an election dispute for Johnson, was one of the most renowned lawyers of his age and had taught at Yale Law School.

"When you look at people like that - even thought they hadn't been on the bench - they were without question on everyone's top list. They were highly qualified," Turley said. "You don't want to be cruel, but these are frank times. We have to be frank over whether this is the person who should be on the court. No one that I know of would have put Harriet Miers on any list for the Court. She just doesn't have the resume to justify such a decision. Being on the Texas Lottery Commission or the Dallas City Council are not the things you look to for a Supreme Court Justice nominee."

"More queries"
Posted by Bobdechemist on 10-03-05 at 01:47 PM
Before people started getting nominated, I had always assumed that you became a supreme court justice by being a really good judge. I thought that if your decisions very rarely got overturned/successfully apealled, you would get promoted and eventually be in line for the higher up judge positions. In that way judges who fully understood the law would end up in the highest positions. The bickering over left wing/right wing would be somewhat mitigated by having all judges equally qualified.


I see that I am completely wrong. Has it always been this way?
I consider myself a feminist but I don't actually think the mere fact that she is a woman counts as instant qualification( first woman to become a partner at a major Texas law firm-woopdewoo! That means there are like 100's of men with that qualification).

All that above is just rambling, I was wondering what the actual precedent is for hiring of SCOTUS and what qualifications they generally have?



Syren loves me and Ice Cat too!
I find that the other countries don't complain as much if they're left as giant radioactive craters.-J Slice

"RE: More queries"
Posted by dabo on 10-03-05 at 02:01 PM
LAST EDITED ON 10-03-05 AT 02:02 PM (EST)

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/39/

The Ohio legislature elected him to represent their state in the U.S. Senate in 1948. Chase was elected governor of Ohio in 1855 and was reelected in 1857. He was returned to the Senate in 1861 but resigned two days after his election to take a position in Lincoln's cabinet as Secretary of the Treasury.

Chase and Lincoln disagreed frequently, and Chase twice submitted his resignation. Lincoln reluctantly accepted it the second time in 1864 but he still held Chase in high esteem. Lincoln nominated him to fill the vacancy created by the death of Chief Justice Roger Taney.

"RE: More queries"
Posted by geg6 on 10-03-05 at 02:12 PM
SCOTUS justices are and have always been, to my knowledge, presidential nominees subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

I'm no Supreme Court scholar, but I don't recall a nominee with so little experience. Perhaps our lawyers can think of a more unqualified candidate?

FTR, Fortas was not even close to unqualified. He was a well-respected legal scholar and law professor, in addition to being LBJ's attorney.


I'm such a slut for the blues.

"RE: More queries"
Posted by Bobdechemist on 10-03-05 at 02:16 PM
"Perhaps our lawyers can think of a more unqualified candidate?"

That was what I was trying to ask in a rather convulated way.

Much more succinct. So, has anyone sucked worse than this nominee?

"RE: More queries"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 10-03-05 at 02:22 PM
So, has anyone sucked worse than this nominee?

Would we be asking about the nominee's sucking abilities if it were a male nominee?!


I'm nuts for Nutz ... and Syren too.
journal

"Suckage"
Posted by Bobdechemist on 10-03-05 at 02:25 PM
Do you mean would anyone aside from you be asking?
"RE: Suckage"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 10-03-05 at 02:33 PM
Touche!


I'm nuts for Nutz ... and Syren too.
journal

"Qualifications? Nope"
Posted by AyaK on 10-03-05 at 03:28 PM
I was wondering what the actual precedent is for hiring of SCOTUS and what qualifications they generally have?

Almost always, a candidate for SCOTUS will have been a federal appeals court judge or a state supreme court judge. But there is no requirement that a SCOTUS nominee be anything except for a lawyer in good standing.

The ideal judge is someone who also is considered a legal scholar or has served as a law professor at a top university. Breyer and Roberts are perfect examples. So were Rehnquist (although he was never a judge) and O'Connor, who graduated at the top of their class at Stanford. Justice Ginsburg's HUSBAND and DAUGHTER would fit this profile, but she doesn't.

The most-respected federal appeals court judge for almost two decades has been Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit. He has no chance of being appointed to a court polarized over Roe because of his age.

Intellectually, a Supreme Court including Miers will be one of the least-powerful courts intellectually since, oh, the 1800s. Ugh.

"RE: Qualifications? Nope"
Posted by geg6 on 10-03-05 at 03:34 PM
>Intellectually, a Supreme Court including Miers
>will be one of the
>least-powerful courts intellectually since, oh,
>the 1800s. Ugh.

And we all know how well that went, don't we?

Plessy v. Ferguson, anyone?


I'm such a slut for the blues.
We still haven't quite overcome that one.

"...or even..."
Posted by AyaK on 10-04-05 at 00:49 AM
I'd pick a different but even worse example. A president appointed one of his closest political allies to the Supreme Court. Once confirmed, the politico decided that he was going to use his power to solve one of the country's biggest problems for a subsequent president who was even a closer friend.

The politico was Roger Taney. The president who appointed him was the supreme idiot Andrew Jackson. The subsequent president was his bosom buddy (and utter incompetent) James Buchanan. The problem he was going to solve was slavery. And the case that he used to solve the problem was Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Of course, Taney's solution (black people could never become citizens of the U.S., simply because of the color of their skin) precipitated a civil war in less than three years. Could Harriet Miers be equally destructive?

After Taney's disaster, Republicans were fond of quoting Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers #76:

"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."

As Santayana said, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

"RE: ...or even..."
Posted by geg6 on 10-04-05 at 08:12 AM
You're absolutely right (as usual in these things). The Dred Scott decision and the unholy triumvirate of Taney, Buchanan, and Jackson (who I agree was thoroughly an a$$, which may surprise some) precipitated a war that almost destroyed America, made the one mistake of the Constitution's framers worse, and created the atmosphere for the Plessy decision (which, as I said earlier, haunts us to this day).

Had I thought it through a bit more instead of posting from the hip, I'd have used both examples. Thanks for pointing that out. Ayak is wise.


I'm such a slut for the blues.
Santayana is a personal hero of mine.

"RE: Qualifications? Nope"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 10-03-05 at 03:36 PM
Intellectually, a Supreme Court including Miers will be one of the least-powerful courts intellectually since, oh, the 1800s.

I think that the American public would be fine with that.

You might have noticed the anti-intellectual tone in the last two presidential elections. It was almost as if we were high schoolers voting for homecoming king, not the leader of the country. For some reason, being smarter than the average bear was seen as a shortcoming, not a strength.


I'm nuts for Nutz ... and Syren too.
journal

Personally, I would prefer that my leaders be smarter than I am. I don't understand why that intimidates some people.

"RE: Qualifications? Nope"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 10-03-05 at 03:44 PM
Personally, I would prefer that my leaders be smarter than I am. I don't understand why that intimidates some people.

When I feel I'm smarter than W is we were and are in so much trouble.


sig by PM and bouncy by IceCat

"Disappointed"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 10-03-05 at 12:24 PM
CNN's Dana Bash contributed to this report.

Dana just didn't try hard enough to get some snappy one-liners in there.


I'm nuts for Nutz ... and Syren too.
journal

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by dabo on 10-03-05 at 12:29 PM
And there I was actually relieved that Dubya had selected Roberts to replace Rehnquist. Not that Roberts would have been my choice, but he is certainly qualified and a much better choice than I'd expected from a Bush White House. Now he turns around and puts up his own personal lawyer who has no experience on the bench? AyaK, you should have submitted your resume!

SMILES ARE FREE

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by RudyRules on 10-03-05 at 12:39 PM
BUT, He could have picked Shakes!


Your defending two time college football pool champion

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by dabo on 10-03-05 at 12:42 PM
God, couldn't you just see the confirmation hearings, shakes backtalking everyone in the room, that would be a great show!

SMILES ARE FREE

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by RudyRules on 10-03-05 at 09:32 PM
This would be his first law clerk, I'm sure.




Your defending two time college football pool champion

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by geg6 on 10-03-05 at 12:52 PM
Shakes would be a fine choice.

I'd want gavel to gavel network coverage of the Judiciary Committee meetings with the spinning clown head. The entertainment value alone would be worth any price.

And once on the SCOTUS bench? Oral arguments would have scalpers selling tickets.


I'm such a slut for the blues.

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by Devious Weasel on 10-03-05 at 01:10 PM
"That may have been the most idiotic statement ever uttered in these chambers during oral argument, counselor."


"...or..."
Posted by AyaK on 10-03-05 at 01:23 PM
"BEST.ORAL.ARGUMENT.EVER"
"RE: ...or..."
Posted by Bebo on 10-03-05 at 01:34 PM
STUPIDEST.BRIEF.EVER.


Just don't see Shakes talking about 'best'.


"RE: ...or..."
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 10-03-05 at 02:11 PM
"Hey, I don't have to dance up here, do I?"



Scratch and sniff
"Tsk, tsk. Pepe's messing with the newbies again." Spidey, 3/30/05

"SCOTUSblog take"
Posted by AyaK on 10-03-05 at 01:33 PM
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/10/commentary_some.html

I have no view on whether she should be confirmed (it's simply too early to say), but will go out on a limb and predict that she will be rejected by the Senate. In my view, Justice O'Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006.

"Instapundit smells a deal"
Posted by AyaK on 10-03-05 at 02:51 PM
LAST EDITED ON 10-03-05 AT 06:18 PM (EST)

http://instapundit.com/archives/025942.php

Back from our Slate days, Glenn and I have had similar political views, and I think he's also right when he alludes to the possibility of a deal between Harry Reid and the Bush folks on this nomination.

Edited to add: More from Glenn.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9580169/#051002

"RE: Instapundit smells a deal"
Posted by Ante Bellum on 10-03-05 at 06:52 PM
This guy should never have passed his 7th-grade English class, much less the bar. IMHO of course.

President Of The Dallas Bar Association, Tim Mountz: "I Think Harriet Miers Would Make An Excellent Judge And For A Number Of Reasons. One Is, Although Harriet Was A Very Good Advocate For Her Clients, She Also Tended To Try To Operate By Consensus Whenever Possible. So I Think That She Would Be A Good Supreme Court Justice For That Reason." (MSNBC's "News Live," 10/3/05)


Handcrafted by RollDdice

"RE: Instapundit smells a deal"
Posted by cahaya on 10-03-05 at 08:30 PM
She Also Tended To Try To Operate By Consensus Whenever Possible

Operate by consensus?

Or, operate by conscience?

Or, operate by Constutition?

Which of these three?

Echoing the sentiments of some posters here regarding Miers qualifications, I'm not in favor of appointing a Supreme Court judge who has no judicial experience.

Let's see where the chips fall. Is all this a set up for failure and a subsequent nomination of one of GWB's real choices? Not likely, but it may turn out that way. Rovian tactics are devious in the extreme, even when not planned that way.


A spooky tribephyl creation

"RE: Instapundit smells a deal"
Posted by dabo on 10-03-05 at 09:19 PM
Can someone please diagram that, I'm not sure what if anything it is supposed to mean.

"RE: Instapundit smells a deal"
Posted by cahaya on 10-04-05 at 02:13 AM
A kindergarten doodling of circular patterns would be just the thing to serve as a diagram. (I'm too lazy to do one with MS Paint and post it, though!)


A spooky tribephyl creation

"RE: Instapundit smells a deal"
Posted by dabo on 10-04-05 at 02:18 AM

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by CutsyTootsy on 10-03-05 at 02:07 PM
I might be in the minority here, but I don't see her as a horrible pick. My early opinion is that at least she's not from the extreme right of the party (that we know yet) and I think it may be good to get someone who's not been on a bench forever and can maybe bring some other experience to the SCOTUS. jmho


arkiegrl's ghoulishly talented!

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by dabo on 10-03-05 at 02:12 PM
That's true, from the political perspective he could probably do a lot worse. Still, it seems he went out of his way to find his own Thomas this time.
"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 10-03-05 at 02:19 PM
If that's true, then maybe a Shakes nomination hearing would not be the most interesting thing to happen. I'm looking forward to "Alien Pubic Hair v 2.0"


I'm nuts for Nutz ... and Syren too.
journal

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by dabo on 10-03-05 at 02:42 PM
I very much doubt there will be an Anita Hill in Miers background, but if there is I may have to upgrade my opinion of her qualifications.
"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 10-03-05 at 03:00 PM
Ah, but it's already gone that way in the blogosphere. And it isn't pretty.


I'm nuts for Nutz ... and Syren too.
journal

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by Bobdechemist on 10-03-05 at 02:21 PM
Which raises an interesting point.

Would people rather have a boneheaded justice of their political leaning or a qualified justice on the other side of the fence?


Or Shakes?

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 10-03-05 at 02:25 PM
I'll wait like I did Robert's to see if she's is or isn't qualified but I think I would like someone who has been a judge and has a track record of deciding cases unless, like Ayka said, they are on everyone’s list as well deserving and very much qualified.


sig by PM and bouncy by IceCat

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by dabo on 10-03-05 at 02:28 PM
No boneheads at all. In the best of all possible worlds the SCOTUS should always have at least one brilliant conservative and one brilliant liberal, and all of the justices should be unconcerned with party politics.
"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by geg6 on 10-03-05 at 02:56 PM
Word.

Would that we only had such a perfect world.


I'm such a slut for the blues.
I'm pretty sure the Bush v2.0 White House pretty much has no one on any of their lists who do not fit the criteria for classifying boneheads.

"Disagree"
Posted by AyaK on 10-04-05 at 01:03 AM
>I'm pretty sure the Bush v2.0 White House pretty much has
>no one on any of their lists who do not
>fit the criteria for classifying boneheads.

From a qualifications standpoint, there were actually several well-qualified names being bandied about. Michael McConnell, J. Michael Luttig, Harve Wilkinson, these were judges (yes, all male) who were extremely well-respected, although conservative. Miers is unlikely to be a closet Souter; she's much more likely to be a closet Scalia. But she's probably most likely to be a closet dunderhead, who will reply "How high?" when Bush tells her to jump.

"Whaddya mean unqualified???"
Posted by Snidget on 10-03-05 at 03:22 PM
Of course she is qualified.

I'm sure she understands "the Bush culture" perfectly and as has been demonstrated time and time again in this administration the bestest person for any job can be totally predicted by how well they understand "the Bush culture".

I mean look at how well all the other students of "Bush culture" have done to make sure this country runs like a well oiled machine where all the needs of the people have been met 120%.

ouch ouch I think I broke my snark bone...medic!!!

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by Bebo on 10-03-05 at 03:56 PM
I'm a cynic. I think Bush expects her to be rejected, and then he'll put up one of the more controversial male names on his list. Then he can claim that he tried to put another woman on the list but got stopped by Congress. And he might try to make Congress look bad by repeatedly rejecting his picks, while he keeps throwing more and more controversial picks their way.

I wonder if this is throw #1 in a divisive game of hardball.


"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 10-03-05 at 04:05 PM
I thought the exact same thing, but didn't want to be the first to say it.


I'm nuts for Nutz ... and Syren too.
journal

Maybe we should open a Bebo/HD political consulting firm...?

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by Bebo on 10-03-05 at 05:23 PM
Maybe we should open a Bebo/HD political consulting firm...?

I'll let you have the corner office and the boy-toy secretary if you let me get a parrot that squawks "Crooks!" when someone walks in the door.


Handcrafted by RollDdice


"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 10-03-05 at 05:51 PM
I like the fringe benefits, but somehow I don't think the parrot will be an asset in building a client base.


I'm nuts for Nutz ... and Syren too.
journal

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by Spidey on 10-03-05 at 04:07 PM
I thought the same thing.

But it appears that if Congress is going to shoot her down, it's going to be the Republicans who do it.


And they are doing such a good job of making themselves look bad, I don't think they really need the help.

"RE: Another unqualified SC pick from a Bush"
Posted by echogirl on 10-03-05 at 04:11 PM
Usually when W does something I have an opinion. Usually it's not a very nice opinion, but at least I have an opinion.

Can I be on the Supreme Court too? I have no qualifications but I'm willing to relocate. Besides I'll look good in the robe.

"Ayak..."
Posted by RudyRules on 10-03-05 at 05:46 PM
Did W. at least talk to you and let you down easy before he picked Ms. Miers?


I thought for sure you were as good as in!

"And for Harriet's opinion, we go to:"
Posted by Estee on 10-03-05 at 06:37 PM
http://harrietmiers.blogspot.com/
"RE: And for Harriet's opinion, we go to:"
Posted by mtopaz on 10-03-05 at 06:40 PM
Hey, we must be following each other around the Net these days. I was just there. Most enjoyed: the posts by Delay and Rove.


Sig pic by JSlice

"RE: And for Harriet's opinion, we go to:"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 10-03-05 at 06:44 PM
My my my, she's been quite prolific today!


I'm nuts for Nutz ... and Syren too.
journal