Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
So now she's out. Can we get a judge for nomination? Cause that was my only real problem.
Last edited:
Meirs
- Thread starter Bustem' Down
- Start date
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
cattitude said:
Thanks
Pete
Repete
I was not initially opposed. I actually thought having someone who was NOT a judge would be a good idea, a free thinker, not bound by stupid paradigms. It wasn't until I heard David From on Laura Ingrham the other day that I changed my mind. He stated that she was not really a free thinker, she was in fact an appeaser and stated several reasons and examples.
I am sure she is not a bad person, a good lawyer, but I would not be happy with someone who has appeased people for 40 years cowering in her office afraid to rule because she thinks Ruthie would be mad at her.
I am sure she is not a bad person, a good lawyer, but I would not be happy with someone who has appeased people for 40 years cowering in her office afraid to rule because she thinks Ruthie would be mad at her.
ylexot
Super Genius
I'm fine with Miers withdrawing. I don't know that there was really anything wrong with her, but she just seemed mediocre.
The thing that pissed me off about the nomination is that Bush would only consider women. I'm sure he'll do the same for the next nomination
Here's a thought...pick the best person you can get. If that person happens to be a woman, great. THE SCOTUS IS NOT A REPRESENTATIVE BODY! It does not have to be a "cross section" of the American people. It needs to have people that are very knowledgable about the law. Find me a law history professor!
The thing that pissed me off about the nomination is that Bush would only consider women. I'm sure he'll do the same for the next nomination
Here's a thought...pick the best person you can get. If that person happens to be a woman, great. THE SCOTUS IS NOT A REPRESENTATIVE BODY! It does not have to be a "cross section" of the American people. It needs to have people that are very knowledgable about the law. Find me a law history professor!
He has to. He already killed all those black people in New Orleans - you want the Left saying he's a sexist, too?ylexot said:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
This is a gift...
...as of late our good friends on the other side of the aisle have been enjoying a resurgence of sorts mainly because they've been keeping their mouths shut.
It is time for W to wheel out a modern day Bork and let the brawl begin. I've had enough of Democrats behaving rationaly for the last month or so.
...as of late our good friends on the other side of the aisle have been enjoying a resurgence of sorts mainly because they've been keeping their mouths shut.
It is time for W to wheel out a modern day Bork and let the brawl begin. I've had enough of Democrats behaving rationaly for the last month or so.
ylexot
Super Genius
Maybe it's part of the plan...
"Meirs was the best woman I could find for SCOTUS. She wasn't good enough for you. I found someone better, but they're male. Which would you rather have? A mediocre woman or a qualified man?"
We can take care of affirmative action and the SCOTUS nomination at the same time.
"Meirs was the best woman I could find for SCOTUS. She wasn't good enough for you. I found someone better, but they're male. Which would you rather have? A mediocre woman or a qualified man?"
We can take care of affirmative action and the SCOTUS nomination at the same time.
This works perfectly. I wasn't terribly opposed to her nomination, citing that she was probably adequate. But "adequate" isn't really what I want - I want someone with *superb* credentials. Someone first in their class from a distinguished law school. It's no guarantee of what kind of judge they'll be - but it's been hard to justify "this is the best candidate we could think of".
And it plays well, for Bush. Now he can nominate anyone.
And it plays well, for Bush. Now he can nominate anyone.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
All I can say is it's about damn time!
Now maybe Bush will nominate Darth Cheney!
Now maybe Bush will nominate Darth Cheney!
I don't see what the big deal is about Miers. How "qualified" do you have to be to read the Consitution and hand down a decision based on it? Ann Coulter has ravaged her (and Bush) for two columns straight now, so she's probably plotzing for joy about the withdrawal.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
She said...
...plotz.
...plotz.
Oh yeah, like the rest of them are such Constitutional experts.SamSpade said:
Scalia and Thomas are the only current ones who even seem to take the Constitution into consideration when coming to a decision.So my take is you probably don't even need to be able to read. Just have a pulse.
Railroad
Routinely Derailed
I think Ms. Miers wasn't given a fair chance to discuss her positions and show her capabilities and limitations. She may or may not have been a good candidate for Supreme Court judge - we will never know. And as for her moral position, we're told that at one time she was pro-abortion, but don't know what her position is today. (It could be she doesn't HAVE a position and can only decide as she's told to decide, but we don't - and won't - know).
ARE THERE BETTER CANDIDATES? Very likely there are, and as some insinuate, maybe there has been one, a more conservative or possibly male choice, waiting in the (right) wing all along.
But I do feel sorry for Ms. Miers - it seems that she was put through an unnecessary, if not embarrassing, and difficult couple of weeks.
ARE THERE BETTER CANDIDATES? Very likely there are, and as some insinuate, maybe there has been one, a more conservative or possibly male choice, waiting in the (right) wing all along.
But I do feel sorry for Ms. Miers - it seems that she was put through an unnecessary, if not embarrassing, and difficult couple of weeks.