SilverScoober02

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9566882/

What is everyone's thoughts on this? The woman has not ever been a judge before so it is hard to discern what her judicial stance on many issues would be.

dub2w

Interesting snippet:

"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the administration to consider Miers, two congressional officials said. Asked to elaborate, Reid’s office told NBC News that he had “urged the White House to take a look at her — but that is it.”


I dont know jack crap about this person. I am still reeling over the fact that Bush is able to pick 2 SC justices (and has a Republican controlled Senate for easy confirmations).

1reguL8NSTi

Who's fault is that?

http://usinfo.state.gov/special/tran...ees/miers.html
http://www.legalreforminthenews.com/...Miers_bio.html

Some random info.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

IIRC Rehnquist and a couple other well known justices in history never served as a judge before either.

Have to wait and see what can be dug-up on her because I have no idea. I don’t even know where she stands yet or if she is/was Republican or Democrat being from Texas.

SilverScoober02

From what I gather it sounds like Conservatives are freaking out more than Dems at this point. I guess we will wait to see what happens.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Let them. A conservative freaking out about a woman justice appointed by conservative bush is like freaking out when the black panther's doorman lets a white person use their restroom. But not so much with the Dems though... either they see her as moderate coming from Bush and accept her candidacy or they haven't even begun to dig on her for the sport they refer to as "Bush Bashing." I think it’ll be 50/50 soon enough…

I think it's a really good sign that she's moderate which is what we need as a Justice. In fact, I bet she was old-time Texas Democrat turned Republican within the last 20 years.

riptide2

Interesting bit of info:

"There was little outright opposition to Miers in the first few hours after her selection was announced — and what there was came from the most unyielding conservative anti-abortion groups.

"It's not that we don't know anything, and the small pieces of information we do know are disappointing. For example, she's Southern Methodist, notoriously pro-abortion,"said Troy Newman of Operation: Rescue. "

SilverScoober02

Newsweek has a good article about this today. Mainly about Roe v. Wade and the nomination of Ms. Miers

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9579542/site/newsweek/

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Should be interesting. I heard in the next session of the SC they're gonna have a case having to do with abortion too. I have to say, I'm plesently surprised that Bush choose to 'walk the fence' with this nomination. Like Salty said, I think both sides will be pissed equally...the best sign of a good comprimise is when both parties are dissatisfied with the comprimise.

SilverScoober02

True!

lojasmo

Exactly right.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Article: Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'

Even though his point about her not ever being a judge is irrelevant I was afraid the rest he mentions will be a problem in the upcoming days. Almost seems like Bush would rather take a chance on cronyism rather than have a person with a huge background. Maybe he thinks it'll help her slip by on the radar screen instead of giving the media and Dems Bash-Bush ammo like they did for Roberts?

I was personally hoping for a Attorney General Alberto Gonzales nomination. Even though he is a friend as well at least he has a huge resume.

psoper

"Take a chance" on cronyism? more like he's thoroughly dependant on it-

what the heck, it's worked for him so far, right?

This one cracked me up; (from republicansareidiots.com in case you were still wondering where I get this stuff...)

Bizarro News
October 3, 2005
WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush, in a move to avoid any controversy whatsoever concerning paper trails, has nominated New York Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

Jeter, who does not have any judicial experience from either side of the bench, nor even a law degree, enjoys the enthusiastic confidence of the President. "Derek doesn't really have any credentials per se, um, but he tells me he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night," the President told a gathering of reporters in the Rose Garden, "I think he'll do just fine on the Supreme Court."

Democrats were left speechless by the announcement.

All right, here we go again. No, Derek Jeter will not be going to the Supreme Court. The Yankees are in the playoffs (again) and they need their shortstop.

What we do have is someone, Harriet Miers, whose resume is nearly as weak.



Seems here biggest acomplishment was scrubbing any records of W's missing (AWOL) time in the guard

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/atty...es/002383.html

http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modu...ticle&sid=2835

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...y_oppose_t.htm

Salty

iTrader: (14)

There's nothing wrong with cronyism if there's wallpaper to boot. For example, Bush knew Roberts and Gonzales well and they have very prestigious law backgrounds and have held significant positions. The potential problem is that Mier may not have this. It's a good strategy to slip past radar but it begs the question on if she's really competent for such an important position.

I never understood the whole cronyism take against Bush. It's as if people think the idea was created in 2000 with the word being added to the Dictionary in 2001. Being able to appoint someone you know has always been the name of the game for any President with ties (mostly ex-Governors and Senators). And if you absolutely didn't know of anyone for a particular job then you went with someone that could benefit your party with close ties with someone you knew and trusted.

It's not like Bush is going to get on the phone to the person he defeated (Kerry) and ask his opinion on the matter in order to please the opposing party. It’s a perk of being an elected official with the authority to appoint an individual for this type of position. There's nothing wrong with this. If you think there's something wrong with this then explain to me how Presidential candidates are all the same and how voting for a particular one doesn’t matter? The fact they can do this is one of the reasons people vote for them in the first place and the main reason why a lot of staunch conservatives feel betrayed by Bush on the Mier decision.

psoper

I think that there should be more than a "wallpaper", I've known people with law degrees who can't pass the bar, and I can't tell you how many "degreed" engineers I've met who don't seem to remember anything from school.

I really think you should appoint people who are qualified for the job,

And while its true that being a judge isn't a prerequsite for serving on the supreme court, in cases where past appointees weren't judges they were usually well respected judicial scholars or people who posessed other undeniable qualifications.

Heading up the Lottery comission isn't really what I'd consider a solid background qualification for a Supreme Court Justice.

No this is just blatent favoritism, I can't for a minute imagine anyone who knows anything about law saying that she is the best, most qualified candidate for the position

And when you assign someone to search for a candidate, I would not like to see them nominate themselves, but that seems to be SOP for the bushistas.

I'd say Derek Jeter's resume is actually stronger than Miers...