Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 10/3/2005 3:08:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 4:11:00 AM EDT by Hipster]
Reuters
Monday, October 3, 2005; 7:01 AM

Bush to announce Supreme Court pick 8 am-CNN

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will announce his nominee to fill the next Supreme Court vacancy at 8 a.m. EDT on Monday, CNN reported.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100300239.html
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:11:08 AM EDT
FOX says its Harriet Miers, White House Counsel.

Do we know anything about her?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:14:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 3:17:01 AM EDT by Hipster]
Harriet Miers Biography

Harriet Miers serves as Counsel to the President. Most recently, she served as Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff, and prior to that she was Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary.

Before joining the President’s staff, she was Co-Managing Partner at Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP from 1998-2000. She had worked at the Locke Purnell, Rain & Harrell firm, or its predecessor, from 1972 until its merger with the Liddell Sapp firm. From 1995 until 2000, she was chair of the Texas Lottery Commission. In 1992, Harriet became the first woman president of the Texas State Bar, and in 1985 she became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association. She also served as a Member-At-Large on the Dallas City Council.

Harriet received both her undergraduate and law degrees from Southern Methodist University.

www.legalreforminthenews.com/leaders/Miers/Miers_bio.html


ETA: link to source URL
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:14:58 AM EDT
He or She Is The Wrong Man or Woman For The Court

Critical Urgent Community Action Bulletin
from the Progressive Action Network For American Progress
For Immediate Release

The Progressive Action Network For American Progress is extremely concerned by today's news that President Bush has selected ___JOHN ROBERTS___ as his nominee for the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. Unlike outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the widely respected and admired moderate consensus-building sensible mainstream compromisist, ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a shocking record of extremely extreme fringe legal positions that fill us with grave concerns about ___HIS___ fitness for this critically crucial office.

Make no mistake: no one should be fooled by the administration's public relations efforts or ___JOHN ROBERTS___ 's seemingly "moderate" appearance. ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a record that suggests that ___HE___ would deny women the right to reproductive choice, stop important life-saving medical stem cell research by extending the Patriot Act to draft their unwanted fetuses, and turn these conscripted fetuses over to dangerous tax-supported 'Creationist' religious indoctrination laboratories. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, and America needs to know whether ___JOHN ROBERTS___ supports the GOP's secret plan of a Rush Limbaugh Jesus army of unwanted, unquestioning fetus zombies programmed to urinate on the Korans of Guantanamo detainees.

We should also point out that our opposition to ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has nothing to do with the nominee's race and/or gender. We at the Progressive Action Network For American Progress have long been on record of standing up for the civil rights of ___WHITE MEN___ , rights from which ___JOHN ROBERTS___ ironically, has benefitted. Sadly, rather than create programs and begin to work on the real problems that concern ___WHITE MEN___ , the Bush administration has cynically forwarded an unqualified, token candidate like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ to mask its callous indifference to the plight of the ___WHITE MAN___ community.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

In response to this shocking nomination, we here at the Progressive Action Network For American Progress are joining forces with other mainstream grassroots progressive activist organizations -- organizations like Peace Power Community Now Network, Grant Proposers for Justice, NairBusters, Out of Our Wombs!, UpChuck.org, ToothACHE, and Sitcom Producers for the American Way. Over the next few weeks we will be encouraging the Senate Judiciary Committee to take a close look at ___JOHN ROBERTS___ and ___HIS___ extremist views on the critical legal issues that face all of us. While we will be working hard to get out the word in Washington, ordinary progressive citizens like you can do your part as well. First, write your newspaper and/or Senator and let them know that you will not stand by idly while Bush and Company install a pseudo-" ___WHITE MAN___" like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ on the nation's highest court. Here's a letter to get you started!

Dear Senator __________

As a constituent and a voter in our great state of ___________, home of the famous ___________, I am proud that our state enjoys the the nickname of "Cradle of ____________s." This is why I must strongly urge you to oppose the nomination of ___JOHN ROBERTS___, a dangerous extremist whose legal rulings threaten to endanger our state's beloved ___________, making us no better than Mississippi.

Sincerely,

Your Name Here

Be polite and remember to fill in your Senator's name and pertinent facts about your state. If you are from Mississippi, replace "Mississippi" with "California". Also, replace "Your Name Here" with your name, unless your name is actually "Your Name Here."

Another thing you can do to help is to find more information about ___JOHN ROBERTS___ . The people who know ___HIM___, what do they say about ___HIM___ ? Was ___HE___ ever in trouble with the law? Frequently, ___WHITE MEN___ like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ have arrest records in their youth. If you are near ___JOHN ROBERTS___ 's hometown of ___UNKNOWN___, try searching in the local police archives for the ___JOHN ROBERTS___ name or possible aliases. Also, think hard -- are you certain that you have not been personally victimized, or assaulted by ___JOHN ROBERTS___? Search your recollections carefully. Scientists tell us that millions of us suffer from Repressed Memory Syndrome -- a debilitating psychological problem where victims are unable to recall a painful physical or emotional trauma, such as being physically violated by ___JOHN ROBERTS___. If you do not remember this happening to you, please call us and we will get you the help you need to recover your mind and start the road to healing.

Consider the consequences of inaction: with ___JOHN ROBERTS___ on the bench, millions of Americans may lose their cherished constitutional rights, Air America, perhaps even their grant money from George Soros. We here at the Progressive Action Network For American Progress ask you to please do your part. Our very democracy depends on the grassroots action of committed progressives like ___YOUR_NAME_HERE___ .

July 20
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:15:21 AM EDT
Oh yeah, forgot that this was going to be coming up. I hope this nominee is so conservative it makes Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer piss their pants, but has a squeeky clean record that can't be denied.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:22:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 3:25:07 AM EDT by hardcorps1775]
so, another blank slate. at least she's from texas...that might be good news...

Reports: Bush to Pick Miers for Supreme Court
Monday, October 03, 2005

WASHINGTON — President Bush has chosen Harriet Miers, White House counsel and a loyal member of the president's inner circle, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, a senior administration official said Monday.

If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court.

[FOX News confirmed that administration officials had indicated Bush's pick would be Miers.]

Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.

Without a judicial record, it's difficult to know whether Miers would dramatically move the court to the right. She would fill the shoes of O'Connor, a swing voter on the court for years who has cast deciding votes on some affirmative action, abortion and death penalty cases.

Known for thoroughness and her low-profile, Miers is one of the first staff members to arrive at the White House in the morning and among the last to leave.

When Bush named her White House counsel in November 2004, the president described Miers as a lawyer with keen judgment and discerning intellect — "a trusted adviser on whom I have long relied for straightforward advice."

He also joked of Miers, "When it comes to a cross-examination, she can filet better than Mrs. Paul."

Miers has been leading the White House effort to help Bush choose nominees to the Supreme Court, so getting the nod herself duplicates a move that Bush made in 2000 when he tapped the man leading his search committee for a vice presidential running mate — Dick Cheney.

foxnews
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:24:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
He or She Is The Wrong Man or Woman For The Court

...





Good point. Bush could pick Jesus and liberals would go
ballistic.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:30:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 3:31:11 AM EDT by david_g17]

Originally Posted By sydney7629:
FOX says its Harriet Miers, White House Counsel.

Do we know anything about her?



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4955603

leave cold.

eta:


Looks like she used to contribute to Democrats


http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/...

DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (D) $1,000
primary 11/03/88

GORE, AL (D)President
ALBERT GORE JR FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE INC $1,000
primary 02/16/88

BENTSEN, LLOYD SENATOR (D)Senate - DC
SENATOR LLOYD BENTSEN ELECTION COMMITTEE
03/30/87

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:30:25 AM EDT
Jesus is too Christian
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:53:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By david_g17:


Looks like she used to contribute to Democrats


http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/...

DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (D) $1,000
primary 11/03/88

GORE, AL (D)President
ALBERT GORE JR FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE INC $1,000
primary 02/16/88


BENTSEN, LLOYD SENATOR (D)Senate - DC
SENATOR LLOYD BENTSEN ELECTION COMMITTEE
03/30/87




Who was he running against? Oh, right...



I'd like to see if she gave to republican candidates as
well.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:53:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By david_g17:

Originally Posted By sydney7629:
FOX says its Harriet Miers, White House Counsel.

Do we know anything about her?



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4955603

leave cold.

eta:


Looks like she used to contribute to Democrats


http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/...

DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (D) $1,000
primary 11/03/88

GORE, AL (D)President
ALBERT GORE JR FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE INC $1,000
primary 02/16/88

BENTSEN, LLOYD SENATOR (D)Senate - DC
SENATOR LLOYD BENTSEN ELECTION COMMITTEE
03/30/87


And after 1990, she only donated to the Republicans, she converted.
Even Reagan was a democrat until he had a change of heart and became a Republican.

Kharn
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:58:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 4:02:28 AM EDT by TheCynic]

Originally Posted By Kharn:
And after 1990, she only donated to the Republicans, she converted.
Even Reagan was a democrat until he had a change of heart and became a Republican.



The problem that I see with this is that she worked with
the President in Texas before he ran. So she worked with
the man personally and still donated to his opponent.


eta: I'm a dumbass - 1988, not 2000.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:16:36 AM EDT
I'm a little worried. FOX said he made his decision with the advice of 80 Senators.

I hope she wasn't a "concensus" candidate
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:22:34 AM EDT
Is she a MILF?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:33:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KC-130 FLT ENG:
Is she a MILF?



Only if you are Strom Thurmond.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:40:55 AM EDT
this is gonna be great. another one with no judicial record and tons of attorney client priveledged untouchable documents. Sweet. I consider us lucky. He picked a member of his 'inner circle' and it was gonzalez.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:46:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
this is gonna be great. another one with no judicial record and tons of attorney client priveledged untouchable documents. Sweet. I consider us lucky. He picked a member of his 'inner circle' and it was gonzalez.



Without knowing where she stands on critical issue you may be eating your words.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:48:20 AM EDT
Chief Justice of the TX Supreme Court says she's a strict constructionalist (aka: white, female Clarence Thomas).

Kharn
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:50:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bulldog1967:
Without knowing where she stands on critical issue you may be eating your words.




Possibly, but it seems like a pretty clever strategy on Mr. Pres part. They'll have a hard time blasting her for her stand on abortion, gay issues, firearms law, etc. Sure, that also means WE don't know her stand, but I think the President knows.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:52:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 4:53:57 AM EDT by Charging_Handle]

Originally Posted By bulldog1967:

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
this is gonna be great. another one with no judicial record and tons of attorney client priveledged untouchable documents. Sweet. I consider us lucky. He picked a member of his 'inner circle' and it was gonzalez.



Without knowing where she stands on critical issue you may be eating your words.



The problem is, if he picked someone that was well known and conservative, the dems would bring out every tool in their arsenal to deny them.

Bush personally knows and trusts this woman but her relative lack of info might allow her a better chance of getting through Congress.

Bush has at least been smart when it comes to this. He's picking people that can't be denied. Hopefully they will vote the right way. But as long as they interpret The Constitution as it's written, that's all that matters to me. So far I've seen nor heard anything that causes me any concern.

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:55:16 AM EDT
I must say that a candidate with NO judicial background is frightening at the very least. Just because Bush SAYS she is a good candidate doesn't make her so. I'd rather have someone else who at least has some record of correctly interpreting the law.

I hate to say this, but without more information on this person, I would have a hard time supporting her (although myvote doesn't matter, sooo.....)

I guess the confirmation hearings will reveal more maybe.

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:55:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 4:57:06 AM EDT by TheCynic]
DAMNIT!
DAMNIT!
DAMNIT!


Harry Reid told the President that Miers would not be
contested in the Senate. You have got to be shitting
me. I was a supporter of Roberts because I trusted
that the President would stand by his word to nominate
a conservative judge. This nomination, given the lack
of concern on the democratic side, casts doubt on my
prior assumption.

THANKS FOR HAVING BALLS TO STAND UP TO THE
DEMOCRATS, MR. PRESIDENT.




Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:57:15 AM EDT
Not a judge.
No track record.

Some of you applaud this with the argument that it will make it tough to attack her but this one could bite us on the ass hard. I, personally, am very nervous about this one.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:59:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
DAMNIT!
DAMNIT!
DAMNIT!


Harry Reid told the President that Miers would not be
contested in the Senate. You have got to be shitting
me. I was a supporter of Roberts because I trusted
that the President would stand by his word to nominate
a conservative judge. This nomination, given the lack
of concern on the democratic side, casts doubt on my
prior assumption.

THANKS FOR HAVING BALLS TO STAND UP TO THE
DEMOCRATS, MR. PRESIDENT.







Chief Justice of the TX Supreme Court says she's a strict constructionalist (aka: white, female Clarence Thomas).

Relax.

If she gets the stamp of approval and title bestowed upon her by a TX Supreme Court Justice, we are in good hands.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:00:05 AM EDT

He also joked of Miers, "When it comes to a cross-examination, she can filet better than Mrs. Paul."


This was one way a lawyer described what they do, "they slice the truth exceedingly thin".

One things for certain. She was NOT one of the lawyers any Democrat recommended to the President in their "CONSULTATIONS".


I'm pretty sanguine about these picks for the SC. I think it's hard to know which way they'll go. It's such an iconic and important job that few appointees serve with reluctance and few retire except for ill health.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:07:11 AM EDT
I think Bush is looking at his poll numbers and he knows that his two primary issues are Iraq and Katrina and he isn't doing so hot with either of them. I honestly don't think he had the will to fight the Democrats on this one.

Its a damn shame
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:08:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Chief Justice of the TX Supreme Court says she's a strict constructionalist (aka: white, female Clarence Thomas).



Riddle me this then: if she is truely a strict constructionist,
why would Dingy Harry say that she would not be contested
in the senate? The Democrats' number one priority is to
ensure that their dominance over the court continues. If
she flies through the Senate, that speaks volumes as to the
Democrats' prospects of her damaging their agenda via
future SCOTUS rulings.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:10:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
One things for certain. She was NOT one of the lawyers any Democrat recommended to the President in their "CONSULTATIONS".



You sure?

From this article.

"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Miers, according to several officials familiar with Bush's consultations with Congress."
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:13:48 AM EDT
She has to be conservative if she was on BUSH's staff. However wasn't it Bush Sr. that nominated Sutter?

Patty
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:15:13 AM EDT
" Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the administration to consider Miers, two congressional officials said. There was a long list of staunchly conservative judges that Democrats were poised to fight, Miers not among them."

He can always go back on his word, it's a democratic tradtition......or deny that's what he meant....also a tradtition.

For the demorats it's always a choice as to which item gives them the most negative publicity. If they make a big deal over Miers then something else goes into the background, like the Hurricane/FEMA issue or Iraq.

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:25:03 AM EDT
So.... she's a strict constructionist that has never served as a judge in any capacity to strcitly construct anything.

Super.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:29:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By david_g17:


Looks like she used to contribute to Democrats


http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/...

DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (D) $1,000
primary 11/03/88

GORE, AL (D)President
ALBERT GORE JR FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE INC $1,000
primary 02/16/88


BENTSEN, LLOYD SENATOR (D)Senate - DC
SENATOR LLOYD BENTSEN ELECTION COMMITTEE
03/30/87




Who was he running against? Oh, right...



I'd like to see if she gave to republican candidates as
well.




I donated to Democrats in the past as well. Takes some folks some time to study up and reach a settled point for their politics. I'm a more fervant conservative for all this stuff, anyway, more dedicated than when I was a democrat. That may be the case with her as well.

Here's some questions though:

1. She's old. Why bother?

2. Anyone have a list of this term's cases WITH information as to what the last court did?
On any case where this attorney has to recuse herself, a "tie" vote results in the "automatic" affirmance of whatever the last court did. She WILL have to recuse on a number of matters, so if the lower courts did what Bush wants, her recusal essentially guarantees affirmance on a technicality. Could he be THAT craftY?

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:32:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
She has to be conservative if she was on BUSH's staff. However wasn't it Bush Sr. that nominated Sutter?

Patty



Why would she have to be a conservative to be on Bush's staff? Bush himself isn't a conservative, and I am leery of anyone the democrats endorse.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:34:05 AM EDT
Why's he picking a 60 year old?

no geezers!
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:36:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bulldog1967:

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
this is gonna be great. another one with no judicial record and tons of attorney client priveledged untouchable documents. Sweet. I consider us lucky. He picked a member of his 'inner circle' and it was gonzalez.



Without knowing where she stands on critical issue you may be eating your words.


if she and roberts turn out to be conservative and pro-2a, words will have never tasted so sweet!

but seeing how bush has turned out to be such a gutless wonder his second term, i'm staying worried and skeptical...
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:36:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
So.... she's a strict constructionist that has never served as a judge in any capacity to strcitly construct anything.

Super.



You know I wouldn't let this scare me. She's been in front of a lot of judges. Bush joked that when she cross examines people come out feeling filleted. I don't think judging is anymore difficult than prosecuting - the evidence has to be there and you need to moral character to protect the constitution.

Patty
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:47:20 AM EDT
I agree that she is too old. The most important reason to re-elect Bush was for these picks. We need someone who will remain on the court for a long time. Chances are now that a Dem president might end up replaceing her within 10-15 yrs with a liberal. I think we have been let down.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:50:12 AM EDT
I'll hold judgement until we learn a little more about her. Initially i'm dissapointed though b/c I was hoping Bush would nominate a well known, right wing conservative (aka Michael Luttig). Also I don't like the fact that she is already 60.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:53:41 AM EDT
Another woman? That makes it appear as though that position on the court is a set-aside for women. Bad precedent. Next thing you know they'll have to expand the court so they can have a position set aside for each minority.

She better be good!
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:57:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pattymcn:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
So.... she's a strict constructionist that has never served as a judge in any capacity to strcitly construct anything.

Super.



You know I wouldn't let this scare me. She's been in front of a lot of judges. Bush joked that when she cross examines people come out feeling filleted. I don't think judging is anymore difficult than prosecuting - the evidence has to be there and you need to moral character to protect the constitution.

Patty



As always, I guess we'll see. I just have a problem applying that term to someone who has never been a judge and has never made a ruling. What would there be to base that title on then? I'd prefer strong appelate judges be elevated to the court, not blank slates with scant judical backgroounds. But that would be a battle and it seems Bush doesn't want to fight for much these days except Iraq.

Maybe they are great and will be exactly what we were promissed but given the status of our other campaign pledges..... well.... I have doubts.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:59:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
She has to be conservative if she was on BUSH's staff. However wasn't it Bush Sr. that nominated Sutter?

Patty



Bush Sr. nominated Souter, but he didn't know him like Bush Jr. knows Miers. Bush Sr. took the word of John Sununu and that's where the thing unraveled.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 6:00:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 6:02:00 AM EDT by PBIR]
She donated $1000 to al gore's Presidential campaign in 1988 - White House damage controll says this is b/c a client of her firm asked them to.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 6:10:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PBIR:
She donated $1000 to al gore's Presidential campaign in 1988 - White House damage controll says this is b/c a client of her firm asked them to.



How is that a good response? It makes her sound completely unprincipled where her political support is for sale and her decisions subject to the whim of her superiors.

I'm mixed on this nomination.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 6:11:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 6:12:08 AM EDT by TheCynic]

Originally Posted By PBIR:
She donated $1000 to al gore's Presidential campaign in 1988 - White House damage controll says this is b/c a client of her firm asked them to.



So, is it better that she'll sell her integrity to those that
pay her a retainer?

e:f,b by Gonzo.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 6:14:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By pattymcn:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
So.... she's a strict constructionist that has never served as a judge in any capacity to strcitly construct anything.

Super.



You know I wouldn't let this scare me. She's been in front of a lot of judges. Bush joked that when she cross examines people come out feeling filleted. I don't think judging is anymore difficult than prosecuting - the evidence has to be there and you need to moral character to protect the constitution.

Patty



As always, I guess we'll see. I just have a problem applying that term to someone who has never been a judge and has never made a ruling. What would there be to base that title on then? I'd prefer strong appelate judges be elevated to the court, not blank slates with scant judical backgroounds. But that would be a battle and it seems Bush doesn't want to fight for much these days except Iraq.

Maybe they are great and will be exactly what we were promissed but given the status of our other campaign pledges..... well.... I have doubts.



I agree, however the pickings are rather slim and possibly the ability to get an appointed from a more experienced judge might be the same? Who knows. I hope and pray this is a good decision. Its unbelievable how much impact this has on US.

Patty
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 6:16:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 6:16:15 AM EDT by PBIR]

Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:

Originally Posted By PBIR:
She donated $1000 to al gore's Presidential campaign in 1988 - White House damage controll says this is b/c a client of her firm asked them to.



How is that a good response? It makes her sound completely unprincipled where her political support is for sale and her decisions subject to the whim of her superiors.

I'm mixed on this nomination.



I never said it was. I'm just giving the whole intel dump, not analyzing it.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 6:19:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 6:20:38 AM EDT by ASUsax]
This worries me...

1) We don't know her.

2) The Dems won't oppose her.

3) She donated to Gore '88.

That, in my mind, is 3 strikes.

Damn.

(Don't get me wrong, I hope she's good... But I think there are SERIOUS doubts...)
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 6:19:54 AM EDT
Wow another 60 "single" never married on the supreme court.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 6:20:42 AM EDT
My buddy has a theory that Bush's first pick for this spot will be cannon fodder. The democrats will unload on her and she won't be nominated. Bush will then propose his true #1 pick and make much noise about partisan politics, etc resulting in less of a stink with the second one. We'll see if he's right.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 6:22:10 AM EDT
i still want john ashcroft...

god, wouldn't that fight be glorious???
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 6:24:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 6:24:57 AM EDT by PBIR]

Originally Posted By gaspasser:
My buddy has a theory that Bush's first pick for this spot will be cannon fodder. The democrats will unload on her and she won't be nominated. Bush will then propose his true #1 pick and make much noise about partisan politics, etc resulting in less of a stink with the second one. We'll see if he's right.



How can the Dems unload on a female nominee with no judicial record to object too? Won't look good for the libs to attack a woman nominee too much. There is the interesting part of the nomination. The unknown factor is making me have to take a crap though. The local morning radio talk show guy is screaming "Souter in drag!"
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top