Edwin MacPhisto Posted October 3, 2005 Report Posted October 3, 2005 I'd imagine part of that is because no one really knows her history, and a lot of Republicans were hoping for a Thomas or Scalia type with a well-established portfolio of conservative opinions. I imagine Democrats will care less because she'll either be so obviously deficient as a candidate or more of middle-grounder once the research is done that she'll be easily blocked or happily welcomed. Really just looks like a smokescreen to get the "somebody's getting BLOCKED!!!1" stuff out of the way and give supporters of the real candidate some talking points for the future.
Big Ol' Smitty Posted October 3, 2005 Report Posted October 3, 2005 Rehnquist was never a judge before nomination douchebags.
The Czech Republic Posted October 3, 2005 Report Posted October 3, 2005 Yeah, and neither was Earl Warren, so we're even now. And at least Nixon never lamented what a bad idea it was to put Rehnquist on. Anyway, a Bush Buddy + Obligatory Woman isn't really what I was hoping for, so I hope the error of ways is seen.
Big Ol' Smitty Posted October 3, 2005 Report Posted October 3, 2005 Yeah, and neither was Earl Warren, so we're even now. How are we even? I was just pointing out to all you cats bitching about how she has never been a judge that there is precedent for this.
The Czech Republic Posted October 3, 2005 Report Posted October 3, 2005 Oh I was just kidding. It's not a battle. But seriously, couldn't Bush have done better than this? I'm afraid it's gonna be Democrats: "We're not sure we know enough about her." Republicans: "Oh! Well what you DO know is she's a woman! Are you just going to shoot her down because she's a woman? SEXIST! SEXIST! CLEARLY YOU'RE TRYING TO BLOCK A WOMAN FROM GETTING TO THE COURT!!!"
Conspiracy_Victim Posted October 3, 2005 Report Posted October 3, 2005 Well, maybe it's Bush's throwaway pick. He might figure that after Roberts got through the Dems are going to bear down on the next nominee. So, he picks a staunch Bush supporter who will either : A) Get through, giving the Republicans another conservative SC justice or B) Get blocked, letting GWB put forth a slightly more moderate nominee which will hopefully satisfy Democrats enough to let them through.
snuffbox Posted October 3, 2005 Report Posted October 3, 2005 She appears to have been a democrat most of her life...
The Czech Republic Posted October 3, 2005 Report Posted October 3, 2005 Well, Harry "you son of a bitch you tried to bribe me" Reid did recommend her.
SuperJerk Posted October 3, 2005 Report Posted October 3, 2005 Well, Harry "you son of a bitch you tried to bribe me" Reid did recommend her. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> She must be pro-life. When Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement on July 1, 2005, President George W. Bush began searching for her replacement and appointed Miers as head of the search committee for potential candidates. Initially, Bush chose John G. Roberts, Jr. as O' Connor's replacement, but the ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist succumbed to thyroid cancer. credit: wikipedia We call that "pulling a Cheney".
Art Sandusky Posted October 4, 2005 Report Posted October 4, 2005 Oh I was just kidding. It's not a battle. But seriously, couldn't Bush have done better than this? I'm afraid it's gonna be Democrats: "We're not sure we know enough about her." Republicans: "Oh! Well what you DO know is she's a woman! Are you just going to shoot her down because she's a woman? SEXIST! SEXIST! CLEARLY YOU'RE TRYING TO BLOCK A WOMAN FROM GETTING TO THE COURT!!!" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I blame Laura Bush. She wanted a woman, and I doubt George is getting any from any of those politicians. Who do you listen to?
SuperJerk Posted October 8, 2005 Report Posted October 8, 2005 Conservatives on Roberts: A nominee should be judged by their qualigfications, not by their ideology. We want judges that will interprete the law, not bring a political agenda to the Supreme Court. Conservatives on Miers: "We're left gathering shreds of evidence in trying to determine how the candidate would vote on the key issues of the day." http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/07/miers.ap/index.html
The Czech Republic Posted October 10, 2005 Report Posted October 10, 2005 Is it possible that conservatives are, in fact, judging her on her qualifications, and aren't quite bowled over by them?
Jobber of the Week Posted October 10, 2005 Report Posted October 10, 2005 The bigger hypocracy from conservatives was that it was unfair to question John Roberts' ability to seperate his faith from the law because we don't have religious tests in this country and that's offensive to him and his career, and blah blah blah. HOW DARE YOU THINK SOMEONE'S FAITH INFLUENCES THEIR JUDGMENT So what's the arguement being put forth by conservatives in support of Meiers? "Trust us, she's an Evangelical Christian, so we know how she'll vote."
SuperJerk Posted October 10, 2005 Report Posted October 10, 2005 Is it possible that conservatives are, in fact, judging her on her qualifications, and aren't quite bowled over by them? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No becuase the fucker actually comes out and says he's trying to figure out how she'd vote.
Big Ol' Smitty Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 President Bush said Wednesday that Harriet Miers' religious beliefs figured into her nomination to the Supreme Court as a top-ranking Democrat warned against any "wink and a nod" campaign for confirmation. "People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion." Link~! The Constifuckingtution: Article. VI... Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The Czech Republic Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 So, where's the real nominee? Is this like Let's Make A Deal, where sometimes he'd string you along into thinking you won a goat, but then kinda roundabouts over to telling you that you really won a car? Seriously.
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 That passage from the Constitution is pretty irrelevant.
Justice Posted October 13, 2005 Author Report Posted October 13, 2005 Yeah. Faith (In whatever you want) can be a judge of moral character for some. The passage pretty much means you can't make some sort of official test involving religion required for their nomination.
Big Ol' Smitty Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 Yeah. Faith (In whatever you want) can be a judge of moral character for some. The passage pretty much means you can't make some sort of official test involving religion required for their nomination. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But that's pretty much Meirs' whole selling point--that she's an evangelical.
Justice Posted October 13, 2005 Author Report Posted October 13, 2005 (edited) Yeah. Faith (In whatever you want) can be a judge of moral character for some. The passage pretty much means you can't make some sort of official test involving religion required for their nomination. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But that's pretty much Meirs' whole selling point--that she's an evangelical. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And I could nominate my dog if I wanted to. He can choose whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants. That's his perogative. At moment, she's not in the Trust of the United States, as needed in the Constitution. It's when you confirm her, you can't have an official religious test. By your current logic, the Senate blocking her because she's evangelical would be a violation of the same clause. Edited October 13, 2005 by Justice
sfaJack Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 So what? It still doesn't make that passage of the Constitution an issue here. Bush can pick whomever he wants, and he did. That's the only part of the Constitution that matters here.
Jobber of the Week Posted October 14, 2005 Report Posted October 14, 2005 Yeah. Faith (In whatever you want) can be a judge of moral character for some. The passage pretty much means you can't make some sort of official test involving religion required for their nomination. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sounds to me like it specifically forbids excluding people from any kind of religion from the bench. In other words, no test to see if you are religious, or see if you subscribe to the right religion. On the other hand, it doesnt say anything about asking "(Nominee), are you so strongly bound to your faith that you will let it influence your vote?"
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted October 14, 2005 Report Posted October 14, 2005 What does any of this have to do with Harriet Miers?
SuperJerk Posted October 14, 2005 Report Posted October 14, 2005 TOP FIVE REASONS HARRIET MIERS SHOULD BE ON THE SUPREME COURT 5. Trust Her...she attends a church. 4. Record, schmecord. She goes to church! 3. She may not have any experience as a judge...but she goes to church! 2. Jesus proudly endorses this product and/or service. And number one... SHE. GOES. TO. CHURCH.
Justice Posted October 14, 2005 Author Report Posted October 14, 2005 Yeah. Faith (In whatever you want) can be a judge of moral character for some. The passage pretty much means you can't make some sort of official test involving religion required for their nomination. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sounds to me like it specifically forbids excluding people from any kind of religion from the bench. In other words, no test to see if you are religious, or see if you subscribe to the right religion. On the other hand, it doesnt say anything about asking "(Nominee), are you so strongly bound to your faith that you will let it influence your vote?" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The former is what I meant. You can't have some sort of Religious test that would deny certain people even a nomination simply on the basis of religion.
The Robfather Posted October 15, 2005 Report Posted October 15, 2005 Miers is not the best qualified pick out there.
Big Ol' Smitty Posted October 15, 2005 Report Posted October 15, 2005 Miers is not the best qualified pick out there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no shit?
Art Sandusky Posted October 16, 2005 Report Posted October 16, 2005 We should clone John Roberts. And make more for when the others leave. Imagine a bench full of that creepy-ass face. And they'd all be qualified!
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now