Posted on 10/03/2005 1:30:05 PM PDT by Irontank
I am mad as hell, that's what I am. About what, I have no idea.
I can only pray and hope that she will bear faith to the Constitution and We, the People.
One can only hope that this becomes the norm on the U.S. Supreme Court. This country has really had its fill of "brilliant jurists," scholars of the law, politicians, academicians, corporate hacks, public policy-makers, etc.
Turn on the TV bud, this is straight from the Dem talking points......you don't have a CLUE about this women's beliefs, you just rant and rave and toss BS onto the forum. Get back with us after the filibuster.....
Ha Ha Ha! If Pat is against her, she must be alright.
I agree with you!
We don't know enough about her to draw conclusions.
I have faith in W.
(Originalist or not, this nominee is very definitely one thing -- a judicial lightweight if there ever existed such a thing!)
And you know this through what personal or professional interaction with the nominee?
____________________________________________________
No, but is that the standard? Get real. I have had significant personal interaction with Scalia and Judge Pryor and I know the real deal when I see it and read it. However, again, that is not the standard. You don't have to know someone personally to study their resume and track record. Miers is very obviously an outstanding LAWYER. First-rate legal minds, on the other hand, are a precious commodity, and another thing entirely in some cases. Roberts, fortunately, was both. Some, however, are not. My point, I guess, is that we really don't need the conservative version of Thurgood Marshall. See David Frum's article at the following link: http://frum.nationalreview.com/
We have plenty of brilliant jurists, who are judges, who think that it is okay to seize private property and give it to other private parties, that it is okay to pass laws retroactively, that it is okay to kill babies, etc.
Rehnquist was just some schmuck that graduated #1 from Stanford law, and had written a few opinions.
1) She is a crony of President Bush's. Value to the nation - zip. Value to the Republican Party - trust Bush's judgment. Value to the Democrats - manna from Heaven.
2) She has been a capable Presidential Counsel. Value to the nation - it could be worse, but there are plenty of lawyers who are more capable and have records to prove it. Value to the Republican Party - trust Bush's judgment. Value to the Democrats - hope that her lack of judicial or public elective/appointive experience means what it usually means for Supreme Court nominees with such records (that she'll veer left under pressure of the best legal minds in the country).
3) She won one election for the Dallas City Council and served a full term. Value to the nation - at least she was elected to something, which is better than nothing. Value to the GOP - oh, please. Value to the Democrats - manna from heaven.
Overall - God Save Us From Big Government Republican Presidents.
Uh, how so?
Miers has been practicing law for 35 years. She was the managing partner of one of the largest firms in Texas.
Rehnquist had been practicing for only 23 years at the time of his nomination, with almost all of that practice in civil litigation. The exact same thing Miers did, though without heading a bar association or becoming a managing partner.
Prior to her nomination, Miers held elected office in Texas, and has spent five years as a Presidential advisor of one form or another.
Prior to his nomination, Rehnquist's public experience was a one year judicial clerkship, and less than two years as an assistant AG.
So in what respect does Rehnquist's "gravitas" at the time of his nomination as Associate Justice outweigh Miers?
It seems like the main argument against her today is that WE don't know her. Well, W does...and she hasn't been put in yet. Maybe she is a sacrifice candidate? If she gets rejected, the Dems wouldn't DARE reject another? (hopefully J.R.Brown, IMHO). We just gotta hang on for a couple of days before we eat our own.
Isn't that dumb on your part? Grow up.
FYI Pat is not 'Media', he's a anti liberal, ala Limbaugh, Coulter, Liddy, independent pundit. We should be glad that he's in the fight. His ideas represents what more people think than the neocons want to admit.
In hinesight, Pat should have stayed in the party, avoided the wrath of the 'liberal' side of the Republican Party, and today would be on W's cabinet, pushing the conservative agenda.
I don't know if that is true or not, but I believe that Earl Warren and Brennan also had never been judges prior to their appointments. More food for thought.
He was, but so was Earl Warren. Anyway Buchanan is probably right that Dubya could do much better. As David Wagner wrote: Now, she may actually be the best nominee since Thomas. Who knows? That Bush trusts her is a plus. But to turn to such a stealth nominee, when so much quality was available, and there are 55 Republicans in the Senate? If there was ever a time to appoint Jones or Garza or Luttig, it was now. Are we being asked to believe that the President had to go the way of stealth and cronyism in order to get a nominee through this Senate? To me, it's irrelevant that she has never been a judge. Neither had Frankfurter, Black, Jackson, or Rehnquist, among others. Nor am I disturbed that her resume is silver or bronze rather than gold. There are too darn many Harvard Law grads on the Court already (yes, I know Our Hero is one, and so is the new Chief), and the Yale-Harvard-Stanford stranglehold on the Court is unnecessary and perhaps harmful. No, my concern is not that there may now be an SMU grad on the Court. That's to the good. My concern is that open advocacy of conservative legal views is now a definite disqualifier for the Supreme Court, in a conservative administration that campaigned in part on putting more Scalias and Thomases on the Court, and with a 55-member GOP Senate conference. Whether you're in practice, in academia, or on a lower court, the crime of being conservative in a public place now means no one will appoint you to the Supreme Court. It's not even clear that Federalist Society membership will be tolerated when it comes to picking high Court nominees.
She can't be all bad if Pat doesn't like her.
You don't seem to realize that Bush could have picked from over a dozen younger, more qualified candidates that would be more reliably conservative, and more reliably anti-Roe-- with or without a paper trail on the last. But no, he picks his own lawyer.
Evangical Christian, active in the church
Loyal to President Bush, her 93 year old mother, 3 brothers and sisters.
Workaholic
Enough "1st Women in Texas" jobs to prove she's a workaholic
Dems don't have a clue.....also known as stealth candidate.
Or President Bush could nominate Brown and watch the filibuster.......politics aren't for the the technically obvious, weak, or socially naive......
Not exactly...I don't think anyone knew he was going to be as good as he has but certainly he was known to be a strong conservative. That's why the opposition was so vicious. And, in 1991, the Democrats had 57 seats in the Senate.
Why, with 55 seats in the Senate, does a Republican President nominate a "stealth candidate" and just hope for the best?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.