Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Too late, Cold Heart, we moved on without you.
But let me ask you, why are you intentionally taking such a minor point as if it is important, and blowing it all out of proportion.
The vetting process involves a lot of people. Miers as secretary simply carried the job she did then, to her new title when she got that.
Why the hell is this a issue? And why are you engaging me on this like I just fell off a fricking turnip truck?
That's a mistake! Just like screwing this nomination before it got to committee.
Who's side are you really on? I wonder.............
Sorry bub, but I've been way ahead of you the entire time.
It's a pity you refuse to catch up, but that is the breaks.:-)
It is time to go. I'm done screwing with rabble, but hope to see you one day when you have some more experience in a few years or so. it will be interesting to see how you progress politically.
btw, just to prove you wrong:
http://volokh.com/posts/1128975191.shtml
Well, you see, Cold Heart, it is like this ... a minor point here ... a minor point there ... and, before you know it, you have accumulated enough points to ... well, maybe even to take down a poorly qualified judicial nominee.
G'night, Cold Heart.
The Senate made a serious error by allowing you and others to affect their judgment and process, so there are mistakes, costly mistakes all around.
I'll be watching the show! It will be quite interesting, seeing how the 08 candidates play this. Very interesting indeed.
Good night! And good luck, cuz I suspect you may not like what is going to happen, and I can't do a thing to stop it now.
I'll give you a hint, it will be a choice between two moderates in 08 and you will likely want to stay home or vote third party!
Hell, depending on who it is, this broken glass repub might stay home as well, and I've never done that before. Scares the hell out of me, but it is not my doings that caused it.
Nite!:-)
Is he gone?
Explain how Blackwell can claim McCain is "a man of integrity and principled leadership." How could that be possible. That's a direct quote from his press release. Do you believe McCain is a man of integrity and principled leadership? Or is this politics, which again, creates a chasim in character.
BTTT
:_)
I actually assumed she'd stay in that role. I don't have a problem with her choosing a conservative nominee for SCOTUS. She seems to be a loyal employee of the President's, and competent at that task (if in fact she has done it in the past, as has been put forth by those supporting her for SCOTUS).
Now, of course, I DO have a problem buying she'd BE a conservative justice. Lawrence Tribe can pick out conservatives, too, but I'd never want him nominated for the SCOTUS either.
I have no problem with that. One report regarding her approach for past nominations contained the following paragraphs ...
She [Miers] was in charge of the White House selection of a chief justice nominee, vetting candidates' records and often playing the tough questioner."We'd be talking about somebody's background," said Leonard Leo, now on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the conservative group whose headlined speakers have included Supreme Court justices and Bush administration official.
"There would be a moment of silence when she was clearly thinking about what was being said and then she would challenge it, asking, 'But what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests that this is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?'" Leo said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051015/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_what_s_known
If this approach is followed, the nominee will have been vetted to the same degree that supports the excellent Circuit and District Court track record that President Bush has demonstrated so far.
Th pundits and the people will be able to see: what specifically (generalities, like "strict constructionist" with no more, are not specific) in the nominee's opinions (they needn't be judicial, but that's okay - any writing, transcript of speech, etc. will do) strongly suggests (this admits a slight amount, but not much ambiguity) that the nominee is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint.
Miers was named WH Counsel in March 2005. The below list shows the dates the Circuit Court nominees were first nominated. Note that some of the nominations reach back to 2001 .. Boyle was first nominated to the 4th Circuit in 1991, by GHWB! All of the Circuit Court nominees fronted in February 2005 were carried over from the 108th Congress.
Feminist Daily News Wire
February 15, 2005
Bush Renominates 7 Judicial Nominees Previously Blocked by Senate Democrats
On Monday, President Bush renominated seven of the ten judicial nominees that were blocked by Democratic filibusters during his first term because of their extreme right-wing records. An additional five of the 20 nominations sent to the Senate yesterday include nominees whose confirmations were slowed because of Democratic opposition to their ultra-conservative backgrounds.
For the Court of Appeals:
For District Courts:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/23/bush.judiciary/
The current status of the nominees was obtained at ...
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/ and
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf
Sen. SMITH (R-NH): In November of 1991, President Bush nominated Lillian R. BeVier, a conservative from Virginia who had testified for Robert Bork. That was her first mistake. Lord help us, she was a conservative, No. 1, in the Democrat years here. No. 2, she testified on behalf of Robert Bork. She was nominated to the Fourth Circuit. Guess what happened to her. Her nomination languished for a whole year. Finally, the committee deep- sixed her at the end of the Bush Presidency--gone, didn't see the light of day. I guess that was unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional now, surely it was unconstitutional then.Of course, it is not unconstitutional. You have that right. On the same day, President Bush nominated Terrence W. Boyle to the Fourth Circuit. Again, the chairman [Biden] put a hold on the nomination for an entire year. It languished in the darkness of Judiciary and never saw the light of day.
Here is an article from 1992. It says: ``North Carolina Judge One of 50 Bush Court Nominations that Won't be Approved.'' It talks about the intentional strategy of Chairman Biden to delay and kill Bush nominees because of the likely Clinton victory. That speaks for itself.
Directions to the Congressional Record of the 2000 debate:106th Congress - Page S1211 - March 7, 2000
Click here -> Senate - March 7, 2000
Navigate to -> 19. NOMINATIONS OF RICHARD A. PAEZ AND MARSHA L. BERZON--Continued --
106th Congress - Page S1212 - March 7, 2000
She [Miers] was in charge of the White House selection of a chief justice nominee, vetting candidates' records and often playing the tough questioner."We'd be talking about somebody's background," said Leonard Leo, now on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the conservative group whose headlined speakers have included Supreme Court justices and Bush administration official.
"There would be a moment of silence when she was clearly thinking about what was being said and then she would challenge it, asking, 'But what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests that this is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?'" Leo said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051015/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_what_s_known
The evidence says she was not "involved" in the vetting activity either while she was staff secretary or while she was deputy chief of staff. She may have handled paperwork or arranged meetings and so forth, and may have been asked her opinions. But the people who were in those vetting meetings have reported that Miers was not present at any of them.
She was, however, involved in the vetting process while she held the position of WH Counsel.
Roll CallThe WH never did directly assert that Miers, as Deputy Chief of Staff, was "involved" in vetting candidates for nomination to the Circuit Courts of Appeal. Rather, the public statements regarding her vetting involvement were focused on the time period since her appointment to the position of WH Counsel in March of this year.
October 17, 2005 Monday
Miers' Role in Vetting Limited
By Paul Kane ROLL CALL STAFFCustomarily, district court nominees - the lowest level of federal judges -are the province of home-state Senators, who often work through their own vetting process with legal scholars in their states. The White House almost always defers to the home-state Senators on those nominees, performing a thorough background check to ensure no legal or ethical problems and then forwarding the name to the Judiciary Committee.
Circuit court nominees generally have been a more nettlesome issue, and were at the heart of this spring's showdown over judicial filibusters. However, none of the nominees involved in that fight came through during the Miers era in the counsel's office. Instead, those were all nominees who had been screened, vetted and selected under the Gonzales stewardship. ...
"Remember, she was part of the search committee that helped pick Roberts. In other words, she went through the deliberations and talking to these different candidates about what they believe," Bush said Oct. 4 in the Rose Garden. "She knows exactly the kind of judge I'm looking for."
Some counsels to Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have rejected this notion, arguing that Miers has not been deeply involved in the issue. They voiced these concerns anonymously to The New York Times last week, saying she had no role in the contentious nomination battles that led up to the narrowly averted filibuster showdown in May.
In an effort to refute this line of attack, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove told conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt on Friday that Miers had been involved in the selection process of nominees since she was elevated from staff secretary to deputy chief of staff in 2003. Rove, according to a posting on Hewitt's Web site Friday, said that Miers was part of the ad hoc committee of seven or more staffers who helped pick judicial nominees.
Miers' Role in Vetting Limited | Paul Kane ROLL CALL STAFF | October 17, 2005
Apparently her lack of factual knowledge about the Constitution is what worked against her.
Gonzales, as WH Counsel, did the vetting that Miers did, as WH Counsel. The activity comes primarily with the job title and function.
... why are you intentionally taking such a minor point as if it is important, and blowing it all out of proportion.
It goes to the matter of credibility. Intellectual honesty requires that participants in debate work from some agreed base, which is usually facts. When one side in the debate is persistent in using debunked facts, it weakens that person's standing in the debate.
A good advocate would concede the point, if not finally, at least tentatively until other evidence is available.
Putting Miss Miers in charge of vetting the next nominee reminds me of some of the big USA companies whose long-time employees are directed as their last act to train cheaper immigrant workers to replace them.
That has got to be the shortest opus ever written. Thanks for letting everyone kick you around and good bye!
I trust President Bush....he's made a lot of good choices and he shares the idealism and direction I think this country should take.
Secondly, I trust James Dobson...
...and even though folks I respect...like Krauthammer, Beverly LeHay of Concerned Women of America, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, etc....sounded an alarm....
..I held on as long as Dobson held on.
Also, I was getting quite ill hearing previouosly supportive folks of President Bush...piling on him publicly...
.I still believe that was very hurtful to him personally and was not professional on their part.
It's that simple.
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.