Harriet Miers apparently pre-approved by Democrats

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:33 am

Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers apparently pre-approved by Democrats

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: October 3, 2005

9:22 p.m. Eastern

Ã‚Â© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

President Bush today nominated a Texas lawyer who serves as White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court Ã¢â‚¬â€œ a pick that apparently was pre-approved by Senate Democratic leadership.

In choosing Miers, Bush tapped a person who has never been a judge and therefore has no judicial record for opponents to criticize.

More: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=46630

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:19 am

I guess the Pres. has more important things to think about than the next %$&%^$& justice of the $%#$&^ United States ##!%#@ Supreme #%@#@ Court!! :-5

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:22 am

Not to mention, she has been his "friend" since he was governor of Texas.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:29 am

I'm wondering if he said;"Harriet, we've been friends for a long time. Will you take a bullet for me? The Democrats aren't going to let us get two in a row without a huge fight.":rolleyes:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:30 am

Come say hello to my little friend!

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:59 pm

LilacDragon wrote: Not to mention, she has been his "friend" since he was governor of Texas.
Are you saying he should find a stranger who he knows nothing about? From what I see here I'm not liking his choice but that she is a friend shouldn't matter.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:15 pm

That she hasn't been a judge before is a major point. Being a lawyer and a judge are two different things altogether.............

(__/)

(='.'=)

( )_( )

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:35 pm

CHANGING OF THE GUARD

Miers' record

begins to fill in

Bush pick supported International Criminal Court, homosexual adoptions, women in combat, tax hike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: October 3, 2005

8:38 p.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah

Ã‚Â© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, is on record as supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court, homosexual adoptions, a major local tax increase and women in combat, WorldNetDaily has learned.

More: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=46641

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:02 am

Far be it from me to defend this choice, but that she has never been a judge is the least concern. There have been 20 justices in the last 100 years that ascended to the SCOTUS without previously serving on the bench, including Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren, William Rhenquist, Lewis Powell, Byron "Whizzer" White, and William O. Douglas.

That Bush has squandered an opportunity to select a known, highly qualified judge who would bring much needed balance to an ever leftward drifting court is the true disappointment.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:55 am

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/d ... 8492c.html

Here's the column by George Will. The more I hear about this the more concerned I become. I'm worried the Senate sees it's duty as looking for a reason that might prove her to be a bad choice, rather than looking for a reason that might prove her to be a good choice. The former would allow a mediocre, possibly even a below-average, candidate to squeeze through. Do we really want any but the absolute best for Supreme Court Justice?

It certainly seems Bush is replacing a woman with a woman simply because the Y chromosome is over-represented, and almost any woman will do.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:14 am

Clint wrote: Are you saying he should find a stranger who he knows nothing about? From what I see here I'm not liking his choice but that she is a friend shouldn't matter.

What I am saying is that he should find someone qualified for the job and shouldn't be afraid to look at people he doesn't know personally.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:42 pm

It certainly seems Bush is replacing a woman with a woman simply because the Y chromosome is over-represented, and almost any woman will do.

I think that is what has so many conservative concerned. She may turn out to be a stellar choice (as her supporters assure) but we know of some highly qualified candidates who are female that Bush passed over in favor of his personal attorney. Meirs must convince us she is equally capable.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:50 pm

5 to 1 odds says she will never be confirmed.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:53 pm

Lon wrote: 5 to 1 odds says she will never be confirmed.
Why play it so safe?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:57 pm

Clint wrote: Why play it so safe?

OK--------------6 to 1

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:34 am

Lon wrote: OK--------------6 to 1
I'll put a buck on that. Who would vote against her? The politicians are so focused on the short term and party politics they've forgotten the real importance of the post. So the Demopublicans will vote for her hoping she's an idiot and will make the "other side" look bad, and the Republicrats will vote party line.

I wonder if there is one sane person left in the senate.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:46 am

Accountable wrote: I'll put a buck on that. Who would vote against her? The politicians are so focused on the short term and party politics they've forgotten the real importance of the post. So the Demopublicans will vote for her hoping she's an idiot and will make the "other side" look bad, and the Republicrats will vote party line.

I wonder if there is one sane person left in the senate.

There is a whole bunch of Repubs that think she is a bad choice. George Will

(Conservative Columnist) most recent column was a shocker as he really blasted the choice. She may just withdraw.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:58 am

Lon wrote: There is a whole bunch of Repubs that think she is a bad choice. George Will

(Conservative Columnist) most recent column was a shocker as he really blasted the choice. She may just withdraw.
I'd forgotten about the withdrawal option I may be out a buck. :-3

I loved that George Will column. I linked it here in an earlier post.

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:38 am

Lon wrote: There is a whole bunch of Repubs that think she is a bad choice. George Will

(Conservative Columnist) most recent column was a shocker as he really blasted the choice. She may just withdraw.Interesting how unanimous the disappaproval of Miers by conservatives is, isn't it? At a time when nominees are so hotly contested, wouldn't it diffuse the democratic opposition if they perceived that Bush was doing another Suter, like his daddy did? If I were a neocon power broker, I would get on the phone and call all my buddies and, giggling with glee, tell them all to cry and whine and complain up a storm to fool the Democrats. Oh, but would these guys think of something even remotely as conspiratorial and sneaky as this? Naaaaa!:sneaky: