Liberals and Conservatives either like or dislike Harriet Miers, the White House Counsel that President Bush picked to replace Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Then there are the select few that are like me in that we're waiting to pass judgement on Harriet Miers.
Liberals are going to dispise any nominee President Bush puts up, period. Liberals' hatred every the President has long spilled over into any thing he thinks of, any thing he touches, or even any one that mildly supports him. There's no getting around that. It would seem now that liberals on Capitol Hill are trying to bait Conservatives into not liking Harriet Miers by giving her at least the slightest of warm receptions.
Some Conservatives on the other hand don't like Harriet Miers for a myriad of reasons (not this Conservative though; I don't know if I like her or not). Some say she doesn't have a solid background or paper trail that can be looked at to see her views. Some think Harriet Miers might turn out to be another David Sooter. I find that very hard to believe since the President has known her for what... twelve years. Isn't that one of the excuses the liberals are going to use to not vote to confirm Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?
Other Conservatives say that Harriet Miers isn't Conservative enough. Well, obviously they don't know that because of the statements they make about lack of a paper trail. If she is or isn't Conservative enough to satisfy Conservatives remains to be seen and certainly wouldn't be a crystal clear picture until after her retirement from the Supreme Court. There really is no telling how far right or left she might go on certain issues. That's why there is a confirmation process. Conservatives might have to also put a level of trust in the President that has known Harriet Miers a lot longer than most of us have.
I'm still holding my thumb-up, thumb-down vote on Harriet Miers until I learn more about her. Right now, there is nothing that would preclude me from accepting her as a Supreme Court Justice; there is also nothing that would encourage me to push for her to sit on the highest court in the land either. Time always tells and I honestly think a fight for or against a nominee right now isn't exactly the best thing, especially when no one knows a single thing about the nominee's judicial philosophy.
1
"It would seem now that liberals on Capitol Hill are trying to bait Conservatives into not liking Harriet Miers by giving her at least the slightest of warm receptions."
-->I disagree. I don't think they have to in a case of someone so completely inexperienced as this.
Posted by: osamabinvotin' at October 07, 2005 10:22 AM (Ttija)
2
Just seems like a experienced judge would be a better appointment to the highest court. The supreme court should not be a training class. To me.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 07, 2005 11:08 AM (M7kiy)
3
What is needed training wise?
The three areas the courts dabble in are
Constitutional Law Well, anyone with a 12th grade reading ability should qualify there. Not 12th grade grads but reading ability mind you.
Statutory law As a lawyer with years and years of experience reading law and advising clients she qualifies.
Contractual lawAs a lawyer with years and years of experience reading law and advising clients she qualifies.
What I want to hear is "I will interpret the law, the Constitution and contracts as written, not as I want them to be." If she is true to that statement she is worthy of the job.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at October 07, 2005 12:11 PM (zrUW+)
4
Fine Marcus, let 12-year olds rule the land. Oh yeah, nobody ever said she was a great lawyer either. The point is that there are MANY more qualified people and Bush's decision on this has everyone scratching their heads.
Posted by: osamabinhamburgler at October 07, 2005 12:55 PM (Ttija)
5
That she is not qualified has not been established anymore than she is qualified.
Quite obviously you don't qualify as you appear to have reading problems.
BTW, what
ARE the qualifications?
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at October 07, 2005 01:00 PM (zrUW+)
6
Well jeez, Marcus...maybe BEING A FUCKING JUDGE? What fictional reading problems do you so pathetically accuse me of? For your benefit:
qualification noun 1 a quality or accomplishment that makes someone suitable for a particular job or activity : only one qualification required—fabulous sense of humor. • the action or fact of becoming qualified as a practitioner of a particular profession or activity : an opportunity for student teachers to share experiences before qualification. • a condition that must be fulfilled before a right can be acquired; an official requirement : the five-year residency qualification for presidential candidates. 2 the action or fact of qualifying or being eligible for something : they need to beat Poland to ensure qualification for the World Cup finals. 3 a statement or assertion that makes another less absolute : this important qualification needs to be remembered when interpreting the results | he renounced without qualification all forms of terrorism. 4 Grammar the attribution of a quality to a word, esp. a noun.
Posted by: osamabinhamburgler at October 07, 2005 04:46 PM (Ttija)
7
Really?
Where does it say a supreme court justice must have been a judge?
Where do I say "let 12-year olds rule the land."
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at October 07, 2005 06:05 PM (zrUW+)
8
Marcus, I guess you'd let a plumber be a brain surgeon then. Also, I was referring to:
"Constitutional Law
Well, anyone with a 12th grade reading ability should qualify there. Not 12th grade grads but reading ability mind you."
My typo. I meant 12th graders, not 12 year olds... Do you want me to believe you think there aren't more experienced people who could do the job better than her? Anyway, I'm out of here & going out to dinner. Have a great weekend and I'll check in soon.
Posted by: osamabinhamburgler at October 07, 2005 07:16 PM (Ttija)
9
Osama: May you and your boyfriend enjoy your dinner.
Tonight, I went to Charlie Gittos in downtown St. Louis. What a great place. Great people. The steak Mave was fabulous and only $23.99. Oh shit! He doesn't allow that kind boy & boy stuff in his restaurant. Even his wait staff is straight. You better stay in NY.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 07, 2005 10:08 PM (M7kiy)
10
Marcus: You have a point. I disagree with you. You can learn to shoot a basketball from a book but you must practise to make a shot. She hasn't practised.
I'm not going to do as Rush Limbaugh advises. Namely, our president has been right on most things so we should trust him on this. I just don't like this appointment. I believe Mr. Bush is playing a game with the liberal idiotic democrats. He figured the dingbats would go for a woman. So he picked a woman to satisfy the nerds, lesbians, democrats and other low life scum. Some republicans are playing the game with him. Acting like they are against her and then they will vote for her when the dumbshit demo's aren't looking. Probably will work. But I would rather we take the high road and bring Bork back. Bush always wins in the end. Why change your tactics when we are finally kicking the shit out of the weenies? Just my opinion. You have yours and its probably just as good as mine. See you in a week or so.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 07, 2005 10:19 PM (M7kiy)
11
Greyrooster,
Remember President Bush campaigned on being a uniter not a fighter. I think that figures big into all of this, after all he has to do is to breath and the left goes into a tizzy I suppose he thought if he could get them to roll over on this he would choose that route instead of an in your eyes conservative on the bench.
Osamabeen....,
Notice I do not say 12th grade level readers can do the job as there are three distinct areas court cases fall into. I contend a 12th grade reading level is needed for one of those three. Reading and understanding the Constitution is much easier than reading statutes or contracts.
The point I am trying to make is that constitutional interpretation really is not that hard. It seems the overeducated on the topic are the ones who hallucinate shadows and penumbras. No, I would not elevate plumbers to brain surgery to try to say that is what I am doing is apples and oranges.
The other two facets (and more common) of the job are the harder ones and it doesn't take a judge's experience to deal with those either. Ms. Miers has been studying, reading, and advising on contract & statutory law for years. What is the difference between telling a client the law (or contract) says XYZ from the front of the bench or telling it to litigants from behind the bench?
Are there more qualified people? The answer to that questions is always yes.
I reiterate to everyone. The most important aspect of the job is how one goes about making a decision. Does Ms. Miers start out by assuming an outcome and then contort the particular set of printed guidelines (whether statutory law, contracts, or constitutional law) to fit her desired outcome (as Mark Levin terms it her personal policy preferences) or does she start with the "printed guidelines" and fits the case into those?
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at October 08, 2005 06:42 AM (x3Muy)
12
Marcus, I totally see your point. Either way, we'll both watch all of this unfold with interest.
Gayrooster...I'm straight as a steel yardstick...as straight as the same steel yardstick my girlfriend would give you a beatdown with if she read this blog. A little advice: Shave your sasquatch wife before telling anyone their girlfriend is a guy. Really, you gotta try to be more convincing. Have fun this week on your trucker rest area gay lovefest road trip...I hope some brothers long stroke you while you're wearing your pointy white cap!
Posted by: osamabinhamburgler at October 08, 2005 07:28 PM (Ttija)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
