Meirs

[Terps]

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.

I don't necesarily think she would have been a bad candidate either except for the fact that she HAD NEVER been a judge. It just makes me a little weary that her being one of the highest judges in the land with no experience makes me hesitant to "trust Bush" on his nomination.

 

[SamSpade]

I don't think that a lot of people - including those in office - quite grasp that a good judge is able to totally put to the back of his mind his PERSONAL beliefs while he presides in a courtroom. All that matters is the proper execution of the law.

I think those in Congress never quite get the idea that personal bias should NEVER interefere with how you complete your duties on the bench - even if you personally hate conservatives, or liberals, or believe in abortion on demand, or are staunchly pro-life - what matters in the Supreme Court is the Constitution and the law - period. If anything, it seems the perfect way to neutralize an ardent abortion foe or proponent would be to stick 'em on the Court, where they can't argue it, at all.

We touched on this on another thread, where pharmacists MUST set aside their personal beliefs to dispense abortion drugs or birth control - or else seek employment elsewhere. If you can't be impartial, you're the wrong person for the job. Can you just see a PETA activist taking a job as a *butcher*, and then complaining it's against their belief?

So it shouldn't matter WHAT she personally believes regarding abortion, but only what she believes are the legitimate exercises of the powers of the bench.

 

[archiew]

An interesting Nominee

I would recommend Ron Paul as a nominee for the Supreme Court. Although he is a Republican, he has excellent Libertarian ideals.

 

[Terps]

That is awful!!! I hope that company goes under. There are men and women leaving and coming home everyday fighting for our country. The LEAST employers can do is let the spouse see them off and greet them in a homecoming! Terrible!

 

[Terps]

Sorry, that was an email!!! hahaha

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes...

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.

...I agree but whose fault was this?

W's.

He did not do enough homework. Many people and groups who helped him all along wanted one and only one thing in return; a right leaning Supreme Court.

We piss and moan about the absurdities of 40 years of Democratic rule in the House where many a bad bill was born but they had a court who would not restrain them. In fact had we a more right leaning court some of the Patriot Act would have never seen the light of day. Scalia had numerous concerns and I think everyone did a double take with this last emminent domain BS.

So, W's supporters see Roberts as no more than a replacement for Rhenquist. O'Conner has been one of the more inconsistent, feathery, if you will, justices of all time. To replace her with another Thomas or Scalia is huge but that's still only 4; Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Mr/Mrs. X.

Kennedy is a moderate who is as capable as anyone in making his own Constitution out of thin air. Souter is a smart, very intelligent man who basically feels the Constitution should say what the masses want it to say which makes him, to me, un-wise. Ginsburg, well, it might be interesting what she actually says if R v W was brought before her. She's said it's bad law in the past. Not a bad idea, but poorly decided. Stephens is...Stephens. Souter is a young Stephens, I think, at least in effect.

So, if we're being objective, even if W nominates and gets Robert Bork the court is STILL neutral.

The NEXT person, obstensibly to replace Stephens, that's the one, the BIG battle.

That's another great myth of the media; a right leaning US Supreme Court.

 

[2ndAmendment]

So you're saying, the only requirement for being an expert on Constitutional law, is the ability to read?

That was the intent. Problem is lawyers don't read like the common man.

 

[ylexot]

Personally, I don't care if the person is a lawyer or not. I don't care if they've been a judge or not. What I would want in a SCOTUS justice is knowledge and understanding of the law. I want someone who not just knows the law, but also knows why the laws are in place and what their purposes are. Someone who understands how the government is supposed to function. Finally, I want someone who believes that the government should function the way that it was intended to (as it was written and intended in the Constitution). From my limited knowledge, Roberts was this kind of person, Miers was not.

As I mentioned earlier, I think a law history professor would be ideal.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Personally, I don't care if the person is a lawyer or not. I don't care if they've been a judge or not. What I would want in a SCOTUS justice is knowledge and understanding of the law. I want someone who not just knows the law, but also knows why the laws are in place and what their purposes are. Someone who understands how the government is supposed to function. Finally, I want someone who believes that the government should function the way that it was intended to (as it was written and intended in the Constitution). From my limited knowledge, Roberts was this kind of person, Miers was not.

As I mentioned earlier, I think a law history professor would be ideal.

I think you are missing something. The law of the United States gets its authority from the Constitution, not the other way around. It is this miss application of law over Constitution rather than Constitution over law that has gotten the United States into the legal mess it is in. The Federal courts have ruled and are ruling in many matters that the federal government, in a strict reading of the Constitution, have no authority. The Congress has made and is making law in many areas that it has no authority, The Executive branch has created departments where it has no authority.

 

[ylexot]

I don't think so...the Constitution is "the law of the land". When I say they must know and understand the law, that means the Constitution and all the other laws (or a reasonable portion...nobody on Earth knows all of the laws). Knowing and understanding the Constitution alone is not enough, but it is a prerequisite (IMO).

 

[2ndAmendment]

I don't think so...the Constitution is "the law of the land". When I say they must know and understand the law, that means the Constitution and all the other laws (or a reasonable portion...nobody on Earth knows all of the laws). Knowing and understanding the Constitution alone is not enough, but it is a prerequisite (IMO).

The Constitution is the foundation for the government that outlines what the government can and cannot do. See Marbury v. Madison (1803).

...

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.


...


Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

There are far too many laws. This also was not intended and is the result of government run amok.

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow." --Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, Federalist No. 62

 

[ylexot]

2A, I'm not sure if you're understanding me or not. It sounds to me like you are trying to make a case that the Constitution is not law.

If that's what you are trying to say, Article VI of The United States Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land." It even identifies itself as law. Of course, I think that's a matter of semantics anyway. "A rose by any other name" etc.

If that's not what you are trying to say, I'm really not getting your point and I have no idea what your problem is (if anything) with what I said.

 

[Larry Gude]

I disagree...

Knowing and understanding the Constitution alone is not enough

It is EVERYTHING.

Repeating 2A:

(Marb/Madison)The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

...and...

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

This is THE ENTIRE argument; either you are of the opinion that;

or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it

...which makes you a fan of pure democracy, 3 wolves and 1 sheep vote for what's for dinner or...

The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means

...you are a Federalist in favor of representative republic governed and RESTRAINED by the Constitution which guatantees limits and rights, minority or otherwise and thus...3 wolves and a sheep with a machine gun discuss what is to be for dinner.


The problem has never been in seeking change; the problem has always been in how one goes about it; there is a Constitutional process, amendment.

If a judge rules that some abomination from congress is constitutional, that's bad enough, at least the branhces did their jobs. When a court MAKES up law or rights from the bench, that should sound the alarm to everyone because it circumvents the process which is to say the Constitution is near meaningless.

 

[ylexot]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHEN DID I SAY THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT SUPREME (meaning it trumps all others)? Actually, I said specifically TWICE that the Constitution is supreme (one of which was a direct quote from the Constitution itself)!

Pop quiz Larry - you find someone who's knowledge and understanding of the Constitution (only the Constitution) is second to none, but they are a complete idiot in all other respects. You want them as a SCOTUS justice? I don't.

 

[sleuth]

shiyat... if you guys can't figure this one out, no wonder we can't find a good judge. Y'all are arguing against each other on the same side.

 

[ylexot]

shiyat... if you guys can't figure this one out, no wonder we can't find a good judge. Y'all are arguing against each other on the same side.

At least I'm not the only one that realizes that

 

[2ndAmendment]

2A, I'm not sure if you're understanding me or not. It sounds to me like you are trying to make a case that the Constitution is not law.

If that's what you are trying to say, Article VI of The United States Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land." It even identifies itself as law. Of course, I think that's a matter of semantics anyway. "A rose by any other name" etc.

If that's not what you are trying to say, I'm really not getting your point and I have no idea what your problem is (if anything) with what I said.

It sounded like you were pulling a "Kerry" and saying the Constitution should be interpreted according to the law instead of the law should be judged according to the Constitution.

Apparently you sounded that way to Larry, too.

 

[Larry Gude]

Not sure if there is any...

...call for getting upset.

You said:

What I would want in a SCOTUS justice is knowledge and understanding of the law. I want someone who not just knows the law, but also knows why the laws are in place and what their purposes are. Someone who understands how the government is supposed to function. Finally, I want someone who believes that the government should function the way that it was intended to (as it was written and intended in the Constitution).

There's many a law, and 2A is trying to make this point as well as I, that has as it's purpose specifically to get around the Constitution where Justices decided it was OK. It's very important to the left that what IS law not be subjected to Constitutional re-scrutiny, having already passed it. Roe v. Wade IS the law of the land, SCOTUS said so in 1973, I think. Roe is entirely at odds with the Constitution, by ANY reasonable reading. Un-elected federal entities collecting taxes and fees are entirely at odds, though they be law, with the Constitution. Entire departments are at odds. Myriad gun laws are totally at odds, though they be law. If one knows the law, they can damn near find precedent and agree with anything that comes before them. If they know the Constitution, that's a different thing.

You also said:

When I say they must know and understand the law, that means the Constitution and all the other laws (or a reasonable portion...nobody on Earth knows all of the laws). Knowing and understanding the Constitution alone is not enough, but it is a prerequisite

I'm just disagreeing; ALL you need to know is the Constitution, IMHO.

 

[Larry Gude]

You'll have to elaborate...

you find someone who's knowledge and understanding of the Constitution (only the Constitution) is second to none, but they are a complete idiot in all other respects. You want them as a SCOTUS justice? I don't.

First off, if their knowledge and understanding of the Constitution is second to none, I want them as Chief Justice.

I really can't picture how that person would be a complete idiot in all other respects.

The converse, if I understand you, is a person top notch in all areas but a complete idiot in terms of the Constitution, I think we've had many of those over the years as Justices and no, I don't want them on the bench.