• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CNN TV: Next Supreme Court Pick

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: DonVito
She seems to me like a strange pick, and I'll be interested in how the ABA rates her qualifications. She has been an extremely successful as an attorney, including running the largest law firm in Texas, but that doesn't imply a lot of experience as a litigator - I have no idea whether she has much experience in that arena, or expertise in constitutional law.

She may be a solid pick, but she seems marginally qualified, and nobody seems toknow a lot about her. This may be an odd confirmation process, because I doubt she will get strong support from either party, outside the support Republicans feel obligated to give.
Click to expand...

Qualified? What are the qualifications? If she meets them, she is qualified.

 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: slyedog
she will have a confirmation hearing like anyone else. but to condemm her just because Bush picked her is ignorant. but the whacko's have begun.
Click to expand...
The whackos? You mean the majority of Americans who disapprove of this president? Those whackos?

She was the president's personal lawyer at one point. We've all seen this guy in action for the last 5 years or so. His decisions leave MUCH to be desired.

And, what's this? She worked for Locke Liddell & Sapp that has links to the indicted TRMPAC?
http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1781

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6652757/site/newsweek


This is just more of the Bush family cronyism at action.
Click to expand...

I thought we settled that majority cxap with the election. Were you one of the ones who didn't vote?

 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: umbrella39

I have to agree and I had no problem with Roberts. This is like an orderly being nominated to chief of staff in a hospital. But like Don said, this is not the first time, nor will it be the last.
Click to expand...

Your analogy is inapt IMO. I don't personally think judicial experience should be a prerequisite for a SC nomination, though it's helpful, particularly in this era of anti-judicial sentiment by uninformed Republicans. Ms. Miers has an impressive legal career. I don't see anything in it to suggest that she's a brilliant legal mind (something I DO think should be a prerequisite for USSC service), but no doubt we'll find out more over time.

One interesting tidbit in her bio is her abrupt, unexplained resignation from the Texas Lottery Commission in 2000. There may be something there (though I'm sure if it were anything awful she wouldn't have been selected). Also, one wonders whether the Christian conservatives will embrace a 60-year-old woman who's never been married . . .
Click to expand...

You have to know that Bush figures the Dims will try to find any dirt there is. He is an expert at this by now.

 
Originally posted by: Condor

Qualified? What are the qualifications? If she meets them, she is qualified.
Click to expand...

Why are you being so obstinate? I will readily agree that John Roberts was certainly one of the best-qualified men in the United States to sit on the Supreme Court. Ms. Miers appears to be, well, less so. I'm not saying she isn't adequately qualified, but it isn't obvious to me she is.

The ABA rates nominees to the federal judiciary based on their qualifications. Until President Bush, they received advance word of the names of nominees to allow them to prescreen them on a quasi-judicial basis for the President. President Bush scrapped this system after about 50 years of ABA involvement in the nomination process. I believe Clarence Thomas was rated the lowest of any justice ever to reach the USSC bench (though it's hard to see how Abe Fortis would have been much better, on the Democratic side).

I guess I think Ms. Miers is probably a very bright woman, but, again, she strikes me as a strange choice with rather marginal qualifications.


 
Originally posted by: Condor

You have to know that Bush figures the Dims will try to find any dirt there is. He is an expert at this by now.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't agree at all (nice troll with the "Dims" comment, BTW - did some Democrat forget to empty your Depends or something?), in that President Bush's administration has been unusually overt in its appointment of unqualified political hacks like Mike Brown, or, more recently, Julie Myers. He appears to have learned nothing from the "Brownie" experience.

I am happy to give President Bush credit for a brilliant appointment in John Roberts, but Ms. Miers strikes me as a rather marginal nominee.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Condor

Qualified? What are the qualifications? If she meets them, she is qualified.
Click to expand...

Why are you being so obstinate? I will readily agree that John Roberts was certainly one of the best-qualified men in the United States to sit on the Supreme Court. Ms. Miers appears to be, well, less so. I'm not saying she isn't adequately qualified, but it isn't obvious to me she is.

The ABA rates nominees to the federal judiciary based on their qualifications. Until President Bush, they received advance word of the names of nominees to allow them to prescreen them on a quasi-judicial basis for the President. President Bush scrapped this system after about 50 years of ABA involvement in the nomination process. I believe Clarence Thomas was rated the lowest of any justice ever to reach the USSC bench (though it's hard to see how Abe Fortis would have been much better, on the Democratic side).

I guess I think Ms. Miers is probably a very bright woman, but, again, she strikes me as a strange choice with rather marginal qualifications.
Click to expand...

A. You must realize by now that is my nature.

B. Bush probably picked her, in part, just to keep the Democrats busy.

C. It is my belief that a SCJ should know law, but should not be limited to that niche of knowledge. She apparently knows business pretty well. With a lot of the litigation that reaches the bench today being business based, she just may be a good pick. Think Enron, etc.

 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Condor

You have to know that Bush figures the Dims will try to find any dirt there is. He is an expert at this by now.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't agree at all (nice troll with the "Dims" comment, BTW - did some Democrat forget to empty your Depends or something?), in that President Bush's administration has been unusually overt in its appointment of unqualified political hacks like Mike Brown, or, more recently, Julie Myers. He appears to have learned nothing from the "Brownie" experience.

I am happy to give President Bush credit for a brilliant appointment in John Roberts, but Ms. Miers strikes me as a rather marginal nominee.
Click to expand...

I would disagree that his appointments have been that bad. Brown got some really bad press, but could anyone else have done better? Surely his picks for Sec State have been much better than anyone since Schultz was appointed. I don't know enough about the rtest to comment and have a respect for your knowledge in this area. I also know that you do come with some bias.

 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I edited my post Don because it made no sense, early am no coffee yet ramblings. 🙂

Edit: A better analogy would be a neurosurgeon being asked to perform heart surgery. While yes, they are somewhat qualified as they are both surgeons, I would prefer one with experience in that particular arena. From what I have heard so far this morning, she has little if any experience in constitutional law. I am sure the right will do that research and let us know what, if any, her qualifications are regarding that. 😉
Click to expand...

a) we want a broad range of experiences on the Court, so, even though she is not an expert at constitutional law, she's probably an expert at something else that is just as likely to come up in the Court. constitutional matters are not the only thing decided by the Court

b) constitutional law is too broad a subject for someone to claim they are really an expert. maybe they're an expert at 1st amendment law but not on other things. there is just too much to know about the constitution to become an expert at all of it. seeing as how the law is that complicated, there is always an element of a heart surgeon being asked to do something outside of heart surgery, with almost every justice in almost every case.
 
Originally posted by: Condor

I would disagree that his appointments have been that bad. Brown got some really bad press, but could anyone else have done better?
Click to expand...

Yes dammit ! YOU could have done better.

Don't you think so ? I do.

Brown was incompetent - are you ?

 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Originally posted by: Condor

I would disagree that his appointments have been that bad. Brown got some really bad press, but could anyone else have done better?
Click to expand...

Yes dammit ! YOU could have done better.

Don't you think so ? I do.

Brown was incompetent - are you ?
Click to expand...

I personally think Koko the gorilla could have done a better job than Brown could have.
 
bush won't have to worry much when he's sent before the supreme court or congress to answer for all the crap done on his watch.

i heard on NPR that she did a lot of work getting competent legal representation for poor people while on the Dallas City Council, among other not so bad things. so hopefully she acts like a moderate.
 
I am not too worried about Miers' qualification, I am more worried about her tie to Bush.

Isn't Judicial branch suppose to be independent from the legislative and executive brances according to US constitution?

What kind of indenpendence do we have here when the President can appoint someone who worked exclusively for him and shaped his policy for the last 5 years to the Supreme Court?

Aren't people at least a bit worried that supreme court opinion can now be influenced by the White House, or worse, the Bush/Cheney family? Maybe next time when Jeb runs for president, he can be sure that SC will back him up if there is a controversy again.
 
Now it's coming out that she is a 'Born-Again' Evangelical Christian, as well as a Bush Loyalist.

Do we really want someone who expounds the 'Evangelical Christian Doctrine' from the Supreme Court ?

She's never been married - is technically a 'spinster', and has devoted her loyalty to Bush and Gods work.

You don't have to think too hard to understand her views on womens rights, abortion, and how the court should rule.
 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Now it's coming out that she is a 'Born-Again' Evangelical Christian, as well as a Bush Loyalist.

Do we really want someone who expounds the 'Evangelical Christian Doctrine' from the Supreme Court ?

She's never been married - is technically a 'spinster', and has devoted her loyalty to Bush and Gods work.

You don't have to think too hard to understand her views on womens rights, abortion, and how the court should rule.
Click to expand...


I don't think its that simple. A career woman is not likely to be against women's rights in the workplace. Among the Born again there is a wide range of beliefs on certain issues. I would agree that she is likely pro-life. But after that its anyone's guess. Remember she donated money to democrats, so some part of the democratic platform must be appealing to her.
 
She is going to be a middle of the road and the best the Dems can get from Bush.

If they bounce her, then he can come back with some-one else that may not be as neutral. Then the finger pointing at the Dems could begin by showing that they advised and rejected their advise.

Them Dems may then get what they do no want. Some one forced down their throats and they become powerless to stop it (ie. the situation earlier with the other judges that were being stalled - This time the whole sorrid story will be clearly visible to the media and the public).
 
More About Harriet

<WashPost>

One evening in the 1980s, several years after Harriet Miers dedicated her life to Jesus Christ, she attended a lecture at her Dallas evangelical church with Nathan Hecht, a colleague at her law firm and her on-again, off-again boyfriend. The speaker was Paul Brand, a surgeon and the author of "Fearfully and Wonderfully Made," a best-selling exploration of God and the human body.

When the lecture was over, Miers said words Hecht had never heard from her before. "I'm convinced that life begins at conception," Hecht recalled her saying. According to Hecht, now a Texas Supreme Court justice, Miers has believed ever since that abortion is "taking a life."

"I know she is pro-life," said Hecht, one of the most conservative judges in Texas. "She thinks that after conception, it's not a balancing act -- or if it is, it's a balancing of two equal lives."

Hecht and other confidants of Miers all pledge that if the Senate confirms her nomination to the Supreme Court, her judicial values will be guided by the law and the Constitution. But they say her personal values have been shaped by her abiding faith in Jesus, and by her membership in the massive red-brick Valley View Christian Church, where she was baptized as an adult, served on the missions committee and taught religious classes. At Valley View, pastors preach that abortion is murder, that the Bible is the literal word of God and that homosexuality is a sin -- although they also preach that God loves everybody.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino declined to comment on Hecht's recollection yesterday but said President Bush did not ask Miers her personal views on abortion or any other issue that may come before the court. "A nominee who shares the president's approach of judicial restraint would not allow personal views to affect his or her rulings based on the law," Perino said.

Some religious conservatives have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the Miers nomination, grumbling that she has never taken public stands on hot-button social issues. But her friends point to Valley View as evidence that she is cut from conservative cloth. They say she's not a "holy roller" who flaunts her religion on her sleeve but she lives her faith as a born-again Christian.

"People in Dallas know she's a conservative," said her friend Ed Kinkeade, a federal district judge. "She's not Elmer Gantry, but she lives what she believes. . . . I'm like, y'all, has George Bush appointed anyone to an appellate court that is a betrayal to conservatives?"

Even in Dallas, home of groups such as the Texas Eagle Forum and the Republican National Coalition for Life, some religious conservatives say Miers, 60, has demonstrated an insufficient commitment to family values. They cited a questionnaire she filled out for a gay rights group in 1989 as a candidate for Dallas City Council, indicating that gay people should have the same civil rights as straight people and that the city should fund AIDS education and services. After her election, she appointed an openly gay lawyer to an influential city board.

"For goodness' sake, why elevate AIDS over cancer? She shouldn't have filled out that questionnaire at all," said Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum. "President Bush is asking us to have faith in things unseen. We only have that kind of faith in God."

But on the same questionnaire, Miers opposed the repeal of a Texas anti-sodomy law and said she was not seeking the endorsement of the gay rights group. In a meeting with the group, she said that her "personal conviction is not consistent" with the "homosexual lifestyle," according to one activist's notes.

</ and more . . .>
 
And another source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a6jP82mF7BDg&refer=us

Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- White House Counsel Harriet Miers's backers are stressing her evangelical Christian faith in urging skeptical conservatives to support her U.S. Supreme Court nomination.

Miers's religious conversion in the late 1970s, as recounted by Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, is being cited by the Bush administration in its drive to reassure conservatives that Miers shares their views on abortion and other social issues.

[...]

Conservative activist Manuel Miranda also voiced disappointment with Bush's choice of Miers on grounds she lacks a clear record.

``The No. 1 hook that allows us to take a leap of faith, even those who don't share her faith, is she is an evangelical Christian,'' said Miranda, executive director of the Third Branch Conference, a Washington-based advocacy group. ``I respect that, but it isn't quite enough.''

A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released last night found that conservatives are cooler to Miers's nomination than to that of John G. Roberts Jr. at a comparable point. The Oct. 3-4 survey found that 58 percent of conservatives called the Miers nomination excellent or good, compared with 77 percent who held that view of the Roberts choice in a Gallup poll taken in July.

Some Senate Republicans reacted cautiously to the Miers nomination.

Unlike Roberts, confirmed last week to be chief justice, ``she is not well known by people, has not had that kind of rallying spark with us,'' said Virginia Senator George Allen. ``For me, this was an opportunity to go from three to four conservative justices,'' he said. ``I still have to be convinced and I think a lot of others do.''
Click to expand...

So when it comes down to it: a person with a law degree and is far right religious is all you need to be picked for USSC? I do not care who you are, republican or democrat, this is just scary.
 
I've never liked bush, but in his defense on this issue, many SC judges through out our history were never judges before being appointed to the SC. In fact, I believe one of the current sitting judges on the SC was never a judge before hand.
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
She is going to be a middle of the road and the best the Dems can get from Bush.

If they bounce her, then he can come back with some-one else that may not be as neutral. Then the finger pointing at the Dems could begin by showing that they advised and rejected their advise.

Them Dems may then get what they do no want. Some one forced down their throats and they become powerless to stop it (ie. the situation earlier with the other judges that were being stalled - This time the whole sorrid story will be clearly visible to the media and the public).
Click to expand...

This may be true - the problem is nobody seems to know much about Ms. Miers, and what we DO know is that she is rather marginally qualified. I don't recall another nomination in which both sides were so lukewarm. My guess is that, regardless of whether she's confirmed, there will be Republican senators who vote against her - that is just bizarre.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
She is going to be a middle of the road and the best the Dems can get from Bush.

If they bounce her, then he can come back with some-one else that may not be as neutral. Then the finger pointing at the Dems could begin by showing that they advised and rejected their advise.

Them Dems may then get what they do no want. Some one forced down their throats and they become powerless to stop it (ie. the situation earlier with the other judges that were being stalled - This time the whole sorrid story will be clearly visible to the media and the public).
Click to expand...

This may be true - the problem is nobody seems to know much about Ms. Miers, and what we DO know is that she is rather marginally qualified. I don't recall another nomination in which both sides were so lukewarm. My guess is that, regardless of whether she's confirmed, there will be Republican senators who vote against her - that is just bizarre.
Click to expand...

Bunch of checkboxes have been filled to satisfy the stated requirements from both sides of the aisle.

People that wrote the "questionaires" forgot to state that one should use #2 pencil or a sharpie or both when filling out the answers.😛

 
let me make sure i understand this...she has been on his payroll for twenty years, a personal lawyer of his...ok!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top