George Will Slams Bush's Nominee
- Thread starter Waitone
- Start date
- Status
marshall3
Member
She owns a .45
Harriet Miers owns a .45, and has defended the 2nd amendmendment. I read she is a bad shot, so you had better leave her alone!
Harriet Miers owns a .45, and has defended the 2nd amendmendment. I read she is a bad shot, so you had better leave her alone!
Last edited:
HankB
Member
I heard an interview yesterday on the radio with Mary Matalin. Her support for Harriet Miers consisted of one, and only one, point: she trusts Bush to name good judges.
She said it several times in different ways, but that's it, there was no more substance to her support other than "trusting Bush."
She said it several times in different ways, but that's it, there was no more substance to her support other than "trusting Bush."
longeyes
member
the Will to power
Beware thin men wearing bowties.
Look, you don't have to go to Harvard to understand "shall not be infringed."
Consider Miers the antidote to Ginsburg.
Beware thin men wearing bowties.
Look, you don't have to go to Harvard to understand "shall not be infringed."
Consider Miers the antidote to Ginsburg.
Miers may be a real nice lady, and good friend to the Shrub.
But from what I know as of this point she has no more qualifications for being on the Supreme Court than my neighbor the D.A. (also a woman, a lawyer, a very nice lady, very active in Republican politics -- but NOT QUALIFIED TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE!).
Maybe during the hearing, Ms. Miers will reveal herself to be a Constitutional Scholar and Legal Philosopher of the first order, but if so, she has done a great job of hiding those aspects of her life from EVERYONE!
But from what I know as of this point she has no more qualifications for being on the Supreme Court than my neighbor the D.A. (also a woman, a lawyer, a very nice lady, very active in Republican politics -- but NOT QUALIFIED TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE!).
Maybe during the hearing, Ms. Miers will reveal herself to be a Constitutional Scholar and Legal Philosopher of the first order, but if so, she has done a great job of hiding those aspects of her life from EVERYONE!
longeyes
member
Please, let's not turn SCOTUS into the Illuminati.
Miers can hire a brilliant clerk or two from the "right schools" if she needs her thinking pumped up. You think all these guys are writing and researching their own stuff?
She would not have been my pick but, that said, I don't think she's by any means a lightweight. The issues most of us are interested in don't require genius, they require clarity and right values.
Miers can hire a brilliant clerk or two from the "right schools" if she needs her thinking pumped up. You think all these guys are writing and researching their own stuff?
She would not have been my pick but, that said, I don't think she's by any means a lightweight. The issues most of us are interested in don't require genius, they require clarity and right values.
Nehemiah Scudder
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Messages
- 391
What the conservative intellectuals are saying is that she lacks "clarity".
Fletchette
Member
Bush needs a slap in the face.
The Senate needs to reject Meirs on account that she is simply not qualified. Bush needs to wake up and understand that he must answer to those that voted for him. I completely do not like Bush. The only reason I voted for him was the fact that there would be several Supreme Court justices leaving the bench and I could not fathom the idea of Kerry selecting new judges.
The Supreme Court has made several very bad decisions even recently. Imminant domain, Posse Comitatus. We even have Breyer openly admitting that he ignores the Constitution and looks to international law!
We NEED good justices in the Supreme Court. These people will affect the country for the next 30 years. It is absolutely critical that we get people in there that treat the Constitution seriously. Roberts appears to be good - I liked his rebuttal to Schumer's "little guy" question. But Meirs is simply unknown. The fact that she switched from Democrat to Republican recently does not make me feel good - it just means that after decades of politcal legal work, she still does not have a firm set of ideals.
Bush seems to think he owes nobody. He needs to be enlightened. Bluntly.
The Senate needs to reject Meirs on account that she is simply not qualified. Bush needs to wake up and understand that he must answer to those that voted for him. I completely do not like Bush. The only reason I voted for him was the fact that there would be several Supreme Court justices leaving the bench and I could not fathom the idea of Kerry selecting new judges.
The Supreme Court has made several very bad decisions even recently. Imminant domain, Posse Comitatus. We even have Breyer openly admitting that he ignores the Constitution and looks to international law!
We NEED good justices in the Supreme Court. These people will affect the country for the next 30 years. It is absolutely critical that we get people in there that treat the Constitution seriously. Roberts appears to be good - I liked his rebuttal to Schumer's "little guy" question. But Meirs is simply unknown. The fact that she switched from Democrat to Republican recently does not make me feel good - it just means that after decades of politcal legal work, she still does not have a firm set of ideals.
Bush seems to think he owes nobody. He needs to be enlightened. Bluntly.
Father Knows Best
Member
I couldn't disagree more. I'm a lawyer. There's a joke that lawyers tell amongst themselves that goes like this:
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
A: "Your Honor."
The point is that there are lots of stupid judges out there. The fact that someone hasn't been a judge in the past doesn't make him or her any less qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. The same thing goes for academia. Our colleges and universities are full of "professors" who think they're the smartest people on the face of the earth, but that doesn't make it so.
Of all the lawyers I've known in my career, including judges and professors and plain old practicing lawyers, the smartest and wisest have been the plain old practicing lawyers. Ms. Miers has had a long and distinguished career. She was a top trial lawyer, and knows her way around a courtroom. She has done many other things that would also prepare her well for the bench -- probably much more so than lawyers who spent 20 years on the bench. As an attorney, I would much rather have my cases (and my clients) in front of a judge with plenty of real world experience than in front of a judge who has long since forgotten what kind of world the rest of us live in.
I like the fact that Ms. Miers is someone who has worked closely with President Bush for 10 years. He knows her and her philosophy better than he would any other candidate. He has seen her in action in a wide variety of circumstances over a long time.
I couldn't disagree more! 
I in no way implied that in order to be qualified Ms. Miers had to be a Professor, or a Judge.
What I am looking for is some evidence that the nominee has spent a fair fraction of their time over the years at least ruminating over the major issues of constitutional law. AND that they have developed a legal/judical philosophy that at least reflects what I think is the proper role of the judiciary in interpreting the law and the constitution (role=modest!).
At this time, we have no evidence whatsoever that she has even read the Federalist papers. Corporate law, which I believe was her major field, is far removed from constitutional law. Like asking a foot doctor to do brain surgery, perhaps. Rather have the brain surgeon, thanks.
The fact that she has worked closely with Bush for 10 years holds zero weight for me, because, even though I voted for the man twice, I no longer trust his judgement. He has proved several times that he is not a good judge of people in some of his appointments. Mrs. Miers is going to have to make her own case.
I in no way implied that in order to be qualified Ms. Miers had to be a Professor, or a Judge.
What I am looking for is some evidence that the nominee has spent a fair fraction of their time over the years at least ruminating over the major issues of constitutional law. AND that they have developed a legal/judical philosophy that at least reflects what I think is the proper role of the judiciary in interpreting the law and the constitution (role=modest!).
At this time, we have no evidence whatsoever that she has even read the Federalist papers. Corporate law, which I believe was her major field, is far removed from constitutional law. Like asking a foot doctor to do brain surgery, perhaps. Rather have the brain surgeon, thanks.
The fact that she has worked closely with Bush for 10 years holds zero weight for me, because, even though I voted for the man twice, I no longer trust his judgement. He has proved several times that he is not a good judge of people in some of his appointments. Mrs. Miers is going to have to make her own case.
goalie
Member
So, what you are saying is that you TRUST Bush to appoint a judge that you agree with on the issues of the day? Considering just how far apart Bush and I are on, oh, let's say immigration, I am not too certain that I want to implicitly trust him with something this important.
History has a way of repeating itself if it is ignored. Or, I could just say, "Like father, like son."
GoRon
Member
This whole Supreme Court issue of the last few months has left me discouraged. Not ready to jump ship yet, but discouraged.
It would be nice to have had two home runs, sure things selected and rammed down the liberals throats. That would have been fun, Hurray for our side!!
Instead we are left with an uneasy feeling. The truth is President Bush promised judges who are originalists like Scalia and Thomas and that MIGHT be what he gave us. The problem is we just don't know yet.
I am cautiously optimistic. Not a slam dunk for sure.
It would be nice to have had two home runs, sure things selected and rammed down the liberals throats. That would have been fun, Hurray for our side!!
Instead we are left with an uneasy feeling. The truth is President Bush promised judges who are originalists like Scalia and Thomas and that MIGHT be what he gave us. The problem is we just don't know yet.
I am cautiously optimistic. Not a slam dunk for sure.
afasano
Member
So how did Earl Warren ever get by these guys with his record?
- Status