Harriet Miers withdraws

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Condor
Yeah, looks like the pedantic speaking elitists from the right won this round. Not the right schools! Yeah, we have them too!

:roll:

If you listen carefully, you might hear me playing the world's smallest violin for your pain.

Miers was regarded by essentially everyone, regardless of political bent, as very ill-qualified, and even the President's base fought her nomination tooth and nail. What, exactly, is your point? Do you think a nominee's credentials simply don't matter, or what?

Sure they matter. I have heard many who are much better at this than you or I say that she was an excellent choice based on merit. Sure she hadn't been a judge, but to me that was a plus. She had a better business background than any of the others and in this day of white collar crimes and huge lawsuits, that looked like some balance the court needed. Many of the nay sayers based their opinion on her not having gruduated from the "right school". That just means that she was not part of the right clic. Again a plus. We need Americans on the court more than we need pedantic wordsmiths with certified pedigrees!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Manufacturing is dying in this country. Why? Because it is cheaper to build things overseas than it is to pay the over inflated salaries of factory workers here. Buddy of mine's dad worked up at the GM truck plant in Oklahoma City. He drives a forklift. What do you think he makes? No, higher. Guess again. How does $64 dollars an hour strike you? Bit much if you ask me for someone who drives a forklift.

Does he get paid that much? 62/hr *8hour/1day *5day/1week=~10,000 if you do some approximations...Are you sure about that? Driving a fork lift nets you 120,000 a year(obviously b4 taxes)! Why aren't all the manufactoring workers the one with massive housing! I know MANY professors who make around that range (even a little under that!) and work on much more complicated things...

If wages really are that high, than Auto worker's unions need to roll over and die...otherwise it sounds like you might be exaggerating, or this is is some extreme circumstance not seen in 99% of the other situations...

Are you new to this issue or what. This was the fallacy of the unions and has been for years. Research the rail industry if you want a good glimpse of the history. We had a steel mill in this town that folded and a Goodyear plant that is still in operation. The personnel at the steel mill would be working, six men to a task (usually that required one) and bragged about getting paid more than the people at Goodyear. At Goodyear, you would see what appeared to be fair allocation of labor and it is still running. The unions were neccessary at first, but outlived their value.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Wow how fvcked in the head does some one on the right have to be to think that this Miers BS was strategy? Do you really think bush can do no wrong?

He nominated what appeared to be a middle of the road candidate. It wasn't from trying to play the left, but from trying to move the SC back to where it should be. On the Constitution and in the middle! He, unlike many here, is bright enough to realize that.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
what's so sad and pathetic about this administration and the Republican party is that before Miers withdrew there was talk about how awfult his administration was and how Republicans were fed up with the cronyism and it really looked as if Republicans were facing the reality of this administration. now with one move, apparently the right wing is in love with Bush all over again. it really shows how simple-minded a lot of his base must be.

also, anyone notice the TIMING of this was right before Fitzgerald is about to drop the bombshell on the indictments?

And you represent what? The other base?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Condor
Sure they matter. I have heard many who are much better at this than you or I say that she was an excellent choice based on merit. Sure she hadn't been a judge, but to me that was a plus. She had a better business background than any of the others and in this day of white collar crimes and huge lawsuits, that looked like some balance the court needed. Many of the nay sayers based their opinion on her not having gruduated from the "right school". That just means that she was not part of the right clic. Again a plus. We need Americans on the court more than we need pedantic wordsmiths with certified pedigrees!

What a bunch of hooey. This is the kind of reasoning that I have read a lot of from the lay-public in the last few weeks, and what it demonstrates to me is that people have no idea what the Supreme Court does (or, for that matter, what appellate advocacy consists of).

Cases before the Supreme Court are not about facts. Having a business background would be about as useful as knowing how to play the accordion when it comes to serving on the Court. Appellate courts are about law, not facts - the facts of the cases are largely irrelevant to what the Supreme Court decides.

My beef with Harriet Miers has nothing to do with what school she graduated from, and everything to do with her near-total lack of relevant experience. As you know, I am a Democrat, but have consistently supported John Roberts as a brilliant constitutional scholar and eminently qualified Chief Justice. Miers, on the other hand, is a joke - a throwaway appointment - and clear proof that even the Supreme Court is not immune from blatant cronyism when George W. Bush is in office.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: zendari
He corrected him mistake. More than I can say for the dems.

wow, i can't believe you made that comment with a straight face. this is the ONLY time Bush has ever done anything to correct ANY of his mistakes. the only reason he did it is because his poll numbers are very low, his administration is falling apart, the right-wing is pissed off at him, and he needs a way out. it's just amazing how easily the right wing can be fooled and hoodwinked, i'm starting to believe in this notion that they really are just sheep.

I'm glad you're in Bush's inner circle and you told him all of this. The only person who liked Harriet Miers was Harry Reid.

I hear some guy at 1600PA was a fan.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Condor
Sure they matter. I have heard many who are much better at this than you or I say that she was an excellent choice based on merit. Sure she hadn't been a judge, but to me that was a plus. She had a better business background than any of the others and in this day of white collar crimes and huge lawsuits, that looked like some balance the court needed. Many of the nay sayers based their opinion on her not having gruduated from the "right school". That just means that she was not part of the right clic. Again a plus. We need Americans on the court more than we need pedantic wordsmiths with certified pedigrees!

What a bunch of hooey. This is the kind of reasoning that I have read a lot of from the lay-public in the last few weeks, and what it demonstrates to me is that people have no idea what the Supreme Court does (or, for that matter, what appellate advocacy consists of).

Cases before the Supreme Court are not about facts. Having a business background would be about as useful as knowing how to play the accordion when it comes to serving on the Court. Appellate courts are about law, not facts - the facts of the cases are largely irrelevant to what the Supreme Court decides.

My beef with Harriet Miers has nothing to do with what school she graduated from, and everything to do with her near-total lack of relevant experience. As you know, I am a Democrat, but have consistently supported John Roberts as a brilliant constitutional scholar and eminently qualified Chief Justice. Miers, on the other hand, is a joke - a throwaway appointment - and clear proof that even the Supreme Court is not immune from blatant cronyism when George W. Bush is in office.

AH, the SC has to represent us lay-public DSes as well as the litigators. Actually, the bias has to be to us and not to you. They serve the public, not the legal industry! The SC needed the likes of Roberts, but also needs the balance. Most of the people I worked with for the last 20 years were diplomats with law degrees. Those people were dangerous with a screwdriver! There is a balance that needs to be restored and maintained.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Condor
And you represent what? The other base?

Nah, the "other base" won't even speak for Sudheer.

You can predict the first one or two sentences almost every time. "Sad", "Pathetic", "Republican", "This administration" ... almost would swear it was a bot.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Manufacturing is dying in this country. Why? Because it is cheaper to build things overseas than it is to pay the over inflated salaries of factory workers here. Buddy of mine's dad worked up at the GM truck plant in Oklahoma City. He drives a forklift. What do you think he makes? No, higher. Guess again. How does $64 dollars an hour strike you? Bit much if you ask me for someone who drives a forklift.

Does he get paid that much? 62/hr *8hour/1day *5day/1week=~10,000 if you do some approximations...Are you sure about that? Driving a fork lift nets you 120,000 a year(obviously b4 taxes)! Why aren't all the manufactoring workers the one with massive housing! I know MANY professors who make around that range (even a little under that!) and work on much more complicated things...

If wages really are that high, than Auto worker's unions need to roll over and die...otherwise it sounds like you might be exaggerating, or this is is some extreme circumstance not seen in 99% of the other situations...

Are you new to this issue or what. This was the fallacy of the unions and has been for years. Research the rail industry if you want a good glimpse of the history. We had a steel mill in this town that folded and a Goodyear plant that is still in operation. The personnel at the steel mill would be working, six men to a task (usually that required one) and bragged about getting paid more than the people at Goodyear. At Goodyear, you would see what appeared to be fair allocation of labor and it is still running. The unions were neccessary at first, but outlived their value.

The RR workers still don't make crap compared to most union workers even represented by union. I won't say anyone is overvalued until I'm in shoes. I know I would'nt want a dangerous auto line job I always seem to hear about "industial accidents" coming out of there and it would be boring too. Not only that, 200,000 people in america making $120K is a huge benfit to our economy... they take vactions, eat at steak houses, buy snowmobiles, houses, etc etc etc your wal-mart coolie does'nt/can't

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Manufacturing is dying in this country. Why? Because it is cheaper to build things overseas than it is to pay the over inflated salaries of factory workers here. Buddy of mine's dad worked up at the GM truck plant in Oklahoma City. He drives a forklift. What do you think he makes? No, higher. Guess again. How does $64 dollars an hour strike you? Bit much if you ask me for someone who drives a forklift.

Does he get paid that much? 62/hr *8hour/1day *5day/1week=~10,000 if you do some approximations...Are you sure about that? Driving a fork lift nets you 120,000 a year(obviously b4 taxes)! Why aren't all the manufactoring workers the one with massive housing! I know MANY professors who make around that range (even a little under that!) and work on much more complicated things...

If wages really are that high, than Auto worker's unions need to roll over and die...otherwise it sounds like you might be exaggerating, or this is is some extreme circumstance not seen in 99% of the other situations...

Are you new to this issue or what. This was the fallacy of the unions and has been for years. Research the rail industry if you want a good glimpse of the history. We had a steel mill in this town that folded and a Goodyear plant that is still in operation. The personnel at the steel mill would be working, six men to a task (usually that required one) and bragged about getting paid more than the people at Goodyear. At Goodyear, you would see what appeared to be fair allocation of labor and it is still running. The unions were neccessary at first, but outlived their value.

The RR workers still don't make crap compared to most union workers even represented by union. I won't say anyone is overvalued until I'm in shoes. I know I would'nt want a dangerous auto line job I always seem to hear about "industial accidents" coming out of there and it would be boring too. Not only that, 200,000 people in america making $120K is a huge benfit to our economy... they take vactions, eat at steak houses, buy snowmobiles, houses, etc etc etc your wal-mart coolie does'nt/can't

That is all true, but they still have to produce goods that can meet the market or maintain huge warehouses.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Condor

AH, the SC has to represent us lay-public DSes as well as the litigators. Actually, the bias has to be to us and not to you. They serve the public, not the legal industry! The SC needed the likes of Roberts, but also needs the balance. Most of the people I worked with for the last 20 years were diplomats with law degrees. Those people were dangerous with a screwdriver! There is a balance that needs to be restored and maintained.

:roll:

Again, you don't appear to understand, even in the most basic way, what the Supreme Court does. I'm not saying they exist to serve the legal industry - clearly they don't - but the Court solely exists to decide legal matters, and almost exclusively matters of constitutional law. In short, we all benefit from having our smartest eggheads on the court. From what I have seen, Harriet Miers is a mediocre mind and would have been another empty chair on the Court (a la Justice Thomas).

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Condor

AH, the SC has to represent us lay-public DSes as well as the litigators. Actually, the bias has to be to us and not to you. They serve the public, not the legal industry! The SC needed the likes of Roberts, but also needs the balance. Most of the people I worked with for the last 20 years were diplomats with law degrees. Those people were dangerous with a screwdriver! There is a balance that needs to be restored and maintained.

:roll:

Again, you don't appear to understand, even in the most basic way, what the Supreme Court does. I'm not saying they exist to serve the legal industry - clearly they don't - but the Court solely exists to decide legal matters, and almost exclusively matters of constitutional law. In short, we all benefit from having our smartest eggheads on the court. From what I have seen, Harriet Miers is a mediocre mind and would have been another empty chair on the Court (a la Justice Thomas).

Too bad the drafters of the Constitution didn't have to undergo the same selection process. Most of the lay-public of today has more education than any of them had in the day. They still managed to stumble through.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Condor

AH, the SC has to represent us lay-public DSes as well as the litigators. Actually, the bias has to be to us and not to you. They serve the public, not the legal industry! The SC needed the likes of Roberts, but also needs the balance. Most of the people I worked with for the last 20 years were diplomats with law degrees. Those people were dangerous with a screwdriver! There is a balance that needs to be restored and maintained.

:roll:

Again, you don't appear to understand, even in the most basic way, what the Supreme Court does. I'm not saying they exist to serve the legal industry - clearly they don't - but the Court solely exists to decide legal matters, and almost exclusively matters of constitutional law. In short, we all benefit from having our smartest eggheads on the court. From what I have seen, Harriet Miers is a mediocre mind and would have been another empty chair on the Court (a la Justice Thomas).

:thumbsdown:
Thomas is the best judge up there if constitutional law is your standard.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Condor

Too bad the drafters of the Constitution didn't have to undergo the same selection process. Most of the lay-public of today has more education than any of them had in the day. They still managed to stumble through.

That's a completely irrelevant comparison, but for whatever it's worth, I think the framers were brilliant visionaries. There's no friggin' way the Bill of Rights could make it through Congress today, and if it did, President Bush would use his veto power for the first time to block it.

 

[PsharkJF]

Had Katrina not happened, I'm pretty sure Miers would have gotten in

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

i think we can all agree Miers was largely unqualified for the job. tomorrow should be an interesting day.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Condor

AH, the SC has to represent us lay-public DSes as well as the litigators. Actually, the bias has to be to us and not to you. They serve the public, not the legal industry! The SC needed the likes of Roberts, but also needs the balance. Most of the people I worked with for the last 20 years were diplomats with law degrees. Those people were dangerous with a screwdriver! There is a balance that needs to be restored and maintained.

:roll:

Again, you don't appear to understand, even in the most basic way, what the Supreme Court does. I'm not saying they exist to serve the legal industry - clearly they don't - but the Court solely exists to decide legal matters, and almost exclusively matters of constitutional law. In short, we all benefit from having our smartest eggheads on the court. From what I have seen, Harriet Miers is a mediocre mind and would have been another empty chair on the Court (a la Justice Thomas).

Too bad the drafters of the Constitution didn't have to undergo the same selection process. Most of the lay-public of today has more education than any of them had in the day. They still managed to stumble through.

Intelligence is not the same thing as education, I'd venture to guess that less educated or not, the founding fathers were able to put a lot higher quality of skull sweat into the document than all of the lay-public of today could muster put together. DonVito is right, the SC isn't supposed to represent the public, we have the other two branches of government for that. The SC is supposed to decide legal matters, solving questions of constitutional law. People with an agenda, or people otherwise too worried about representing the public are by defintion bad at that job. That's what bugs me to know end about the conservatives (or liberals, but you hear a lot less from them on this issue) seeking judges with this view or that view on specific legal issues. That makes no sense, that's not what the court is for.

Extending DonVito's explanation to include a "why", I would think that the reason the court was created this way was to provide a check on the will of the people. We live in a Democracy, but our power is checked by the laws of this country. Without that, as the old saying goes, we'd be a country of two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. Of course a lot of people (ahem) would love this, but that's not what this country is about. It's important that we have a court that is able to protect that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
i think we can all agree Miers was largely unqualified for the job. tomorrow should be an interesting day.

Yes, she was unqualified, and I'm not sorry to see her go...except I kind of am, because I don't trust Bush to have another Roberts waiting in the wings. We already got our well qualified candidate, then we got an incompetent Bush crony. If the next person isn't a righty fanatic, I'll be surprised. Pleased, but surprised.

 

[ramuman]

I wonder if this makes O'Connor happy or sad?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

my question is why didn't O'Connor stay for two more years? I know she's not supposed to be partisan, but even she should know that trusting a SC nominee in the hands of Bush is playing with fire.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
my question is why didn't O'Connor stay for two more years? I know she's not supposed to be partisan, but even she should know that trusting a SC nominee in the hands of Bush is playing with fire.

Have you've seen her?

She's as messed up as Janet Reno.

I wonder what's in the water in D.C.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
my question is why didn't O'Connor stay for two more years? I know she's not supposed to be partisan, but even she should know that trusting a SC nominee in the hands of Bush is playing with fire.

Because she's 75 and wants to retire? And according to the liberals here she was one of the justices to "choose" Bush in 2000 anyway.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

well let's all hope Bush picks another solid candidate like Roberts. this country has had enough fighting and bitter partisan rivalries. at the end of the day, it seems like our Republican and Democratic parties are doing more to separate us than unite us.

 

[aidanjm]

?

 

[zendari]

Tradesports has Samuel Alito at 33% and Luttig at 17%.