Posted on 10/14/2005 7:05:23 PM PDT by jwalsh07
One fatal flaw to bouncing Cheney is that Lieberman was not the plaintiff. He was the guy with a real interest in the matter. When the guy with a real interest in the matter is absent, that tends to color things for judges. Just a thought. But in the end that doesn't matter. The policy considerations in this mobile nation, interpretating an archaic and disfavored clause, the reasons behind it now totally dead, is just too much heavy lifting. I look forward to reading the briefs more carefully.
So was Miers. Uh oh, you didn't know that did you?
Tell me how some anonymous poster on a forum has the slightest clue about "common man" and/or SCOTUS nominees, other than than own opinion.......
Miers was the lead attorney. But don't take my word for it, email her esteemed opponent Sander Levinson and find out for yourself.
They don't trumpet Miers' involvement in this case because her argument was about as far from an originalist's understanding of the Constitution as possible. The Wall Street Journal had a frontpage story about this case either earlier this week or late last week.
In her defense, she was just zealously representing her client's interests, so I'm not sure how much anyone can take away from the position she took, however.
I like your questions. I would add:
Does International Law have any on your decisions and/or should it have any influence on the cases decided by any American court.
It absolutely does. Where are Miers originalist and Constitutional opinions? I say again. How is a Corporate Lawyer considered to be a "man on the street"?
You're pretty good. LOL
I give up, how?
:)
It's a domicile case, more or less. The Constitutional ramifications flow from the finding of domicile.
FYI
How did this man on the street nonsense come up? I don't want the man on the street on SCOTUS. Who does?
Right but we glean something of her capabilities by reading her brief and listening to her opponent in the case. Glean away.
And certain people, including some on FR, think that this means the President is nothing but a drooling idiot. I guess they are all perfect and not like most people who do not speak perfect 100% of the time. Of course most people seem to have forgotten the President's response to Kerry in the second 2004 debate.
"I own a timber company? That's news to me. Need some wood?"
Dunno and I'm not playing.
As in case closed.
BTW - Ronnie Earle dumped that case you said was a slam dunk against DeLay. Now we get to see if DeLay loases on the underlying cause of action, i.e., doesn't "beat the rap" for want of finding conspiracy.
I haven't opened it yet. How many authors on the brief? Which parts are hers? Who is the wordsmith?
I haven't opened it yet. How many authors on the brief? Which parts are hers? Who is the wordsmith?
Nevermind. It's the opinion of the court, built up from whatever was taken from counsel's briefs. Pretty tenuous connection from ther to HM's personal contribution - unless you have something I'm missing.
So what did they have to say?
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.