Quoted: 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!

I sort of agree but Roberts was originally set to succeed O'Connor, not Rehnquist.

Quoted: Wow another 60 "single" never married on the supreme court.

You sure about that part?

I don't like this at all.  I predict she will flop to the left.





CMOS

Quoted: Quoted: i still want john ashcroft... god, wouldn't that fight be glorious??? Sure the fight would be fun.  But that's just what we need.  A SCOTUS judge that would waste time ruling on covering nude statues.

or a scotus judge that would make history ruling on the rkba as an individual right.

Quoted: 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.

In 1988, Gore was running as a conservative, if you remember correctly.  He passed himself off as pro-defense and pro-gun.

well, if we had a more pro-constitution bench, maybe we'd force cases to that level.

anyway, it's better to have a far right justice than a far left justice. i really don't give a fuck about sluts who wanna kill their babies, assholes who wanna off themselves cuz they got a hangnail, or faggot new york "artistes" who wanna piss on a crucifix and use my tax dollars to shove it down our throats and call it "freedom of expression" other than i want them all dead.

Quoted: 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.

No. I won't withold judgement BECAUSE we know so little about her.

WHY FEAR OPENLY-CONSERVATIVE NOMINEES!???

It was Conservatives who delivered GWBush his re-election mainly on:
1) The War
2) SCOTUS nominations

WHERE IS THE CONSERVATIVE VOICE IN EITHER OF GWBUSH'S SCOTUS NOMINEES???

If Kerry had been elected - you can be DAMN well sure he'd nominate two openly-leftist nominees rather than a "blank slate" like this nominee.

No more blank slates!!

No more David Souters!!

I am unsure about Mier. We'll have to wait and see what the commitee hearings are like.

What are the DUmbasses saying about her?

Quoted: Quoted: 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. In 1988, Gore was running as a conservative, if you remember correctly.  He passed himself off as pro-defense and pro-gun.

So did YOU vote for him or donate money to him???

Quoted: Wow another 60 "single" never married on the supreme court.

Sounds like a great way to get a closet pro choice person if I've ever seen one...

MIERS, HARRIET E MS DALLAS, TX 75229 DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (D) $1,000 primary 11/03/88 MIERS, HARRIET E DALLAS, TX 75219 LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $630 primary 02/16/88 MIERS, HARRIET E MS DALLAS, TX 75219 LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL GORE, AL (D) President ALBERT GORE JR FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE INC $1,000 primary 02/16/88 MIERS, HARRIET E MRS DALLAS, TX 75201 LOCKE PURNELL ETAL BENTSEN, LLOYD SENATOR (D) Senate - DC SENATOR LLOYD BENTSEN ELECTION COMMITTEE $1,000 primary 03/30/87 Data Provided by the Federal Election Commission as of 9/26/05 -- 11,897,056 records

"VERIFIED: It's Harriet Miers"  


Don't forget what the Bush White House did with the Roberts announcement, they floated a false pick to the media, made them look like the bunch of idiots that they are.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. In 1988, Gore was running as a conservative, if you remember correctly.  He passed himself off as pro-defense and pro-gun. So did YOU vote for him or donate money to him???

Considering he was running for the Democratic party nomination and I was a registered Republican, it would have been problematic for me to vote for him.  Considering I was a poor college student at the time, it would also have been difficult for me to donate money to ANYONE.

At least it wasn't Gonzales.  

Quoted: This is certainly a disappointment. The most important reason I voted for Bush was SCOTUS.  He seems to have fucked up his two nominations.

An assertion for which you have absolutely NO proof yet.

Quoted: "VERIFIED: It's Harriet Miers"   Don't forget what the Bush White House did with the Roberts announcement, they floated a false pick to the media, made them look like the bunch of idiots that they are.

The President announced this at a press conference with the nominee right there.

I think it is safe to say that she is the actual nominee.

David Frum says:

I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or--and more importantly--that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. This is a chance that may never occur again: a decisive vacancy on the court, a conservative president, a 55-seat Republican majority, a large bench of brilliant and superbly credentialed conservative jurists ... and what has been done with the opportunity? I am not saying that Harriet Miers is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have good reason to believe either of these things. .. Harriet Miers is a taut, nervous, anxious personality. It is hard for me to imagine that she can endure the anger and abuse--or resist the blandishments--that transformed, say, Anthony Kennedy into the judge he is today. Nor is it safe for the president's conservative supporters to defer to the president's judgment and say, "Well, he must know best." The record shows I fear that the president's judgment has always been at its worst on personnel matters. Again and again, George Bush has announced bold visionary policies--and again and again he has entrusted the execution of those policies to people who do not believe in them or even understand them. This is most conspicuously true in foreign policy, but it has been true in domestic policy as well. The result: the voice is the voice of Reagan, but too often the hands are the hands of George HW Bush. Or worse. George H. W. Bush made his bad appointments in the name of replacing Reaganite "ideology" with moderate Republican "competence." He didn't live up to his own billing, but you can understand his intentions. But the younger Bush has based his personnel decisions upon a network of personal connections in which competence does not always play the largest part.

frum.nationalreview.com/

Super.

Quoted: David Frum says: I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or--and more importantly--that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. This is a chance that may never occur again: a decisive vacancy on the court, a conservative president, a 55-seat Republican majority, a large bench of brilliant and superbly credentialed conservative jurists ... and what has been done with the opportunity? I am not saying that Harriet Miers is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have good reason to believe either of these things. frum.nationalreview.com/ Super.

And that is what worries me.

For the life of me I cannot fathom how the Republicans hold the white house, the senate, and the house, and are yet so scared of the Dems that they can't put through a nominee who is a known quantity.

If they are truly so weak that they cannot stop things like CFR in legislation and cannot get decent judges on the bench, then it is time we got rid of the weak ones and put some people in there who will do what needs to be done.

Their base is what wins them elections. If the base works their butt off to get them elected only to always see dem-light, then what is the point of continuing to elect them?

Quoted: For the life of me I cannot fathom how the Republicans hold the white house, the senate, and the house, and are yet so scared of the Dems that they can't put through a nominee who is a known quantity.

Because while Republicans nominally control the Senate, conservatives DO NOT.  In the Senate we have such RINOs as McCain and Specter.  They will NOT vote to approve a well-known conservative with a known track record, and the President KNOWS it.  He also knows it would publically fracture the party if they break.

Quoted: Quoted: "VERIFIED: It's Harriet Miers"   Don't forget what the Bush White House did with the Roberts announcement, they floated a false pick to the media, made them look like the bunch of idiots that they are. The President announced this at a press conference with the nominee right there. I think it is safe to say that she is the actual nominee.

Nawwwww.... it's all part of the smoke and mirrors and he'll nominate William F Buckley while nobody's watching.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is certainly a disappointment. The most important reason I voted for Bush was SCOTUS.  He seems to have fucked up his two nominations.   An assertion for which you have absolutely NO proof yet. Nor does anyone have any proof to the contrary.

No one has proof to the contrary of the notion that I will suddenly decide to put on a pink tuxedo and start singing show tunes, but it ain't fuckin' likely.

What worries me is so many Democrats are reserved but generally OK with the appointment.  Republicans seem to be disappointed.  There must be more to the story than we know

Harriet Miers -- pro, part 5

Questions are being raised about Harriet Miers' politics because published records show her making contributions of $1,000 to Lloyd Bentsen in 1987, Al Gore in 1988, and the Democratic National Committee that same year. Hecht says, "She was a Democrat years and years ago, in the early 80s." As far as the late 80s contributions, "If she did it, it was because the [law] firm made her do it." She is loyal to President Bush and he to her: "The president demands a lot. The people he's loyal to are productive." Miers and Laura Bush are "very close. Harriet just loves Laura, has the deepest respect for her. Laura has migrated in her faith, it’s stronger than when she got to Washington.”

Harriet Myers -- anti

Hecht's evaluation needs to be taken seriously, but here's one negative analysis from a lawyer who is a conservative Christian and worked with Harriet Miers in Texas (I agreed to go off-the-record with this lawyer, a credible person whose practice could be seriously hurt by this criticism of Miers): "Harriet could have become a conservative in Washington, but unless she did, she doesn’t have any particular judicial philosophy… I never heard her take a position on anything… We’ll have another Sandra Day O’Connor… Harriet worships the president and has called him the smartest man she’s known. She’s a pretty good lawyer…. This president can be bamboozled by anyone he feels close to. If a person fawns on him enough, is loyal, works 25 hours a day and says you’re the smartest man I ever met, all of a sudden you’re right for the Supreme Court."

Harriet Miers -- her pastor's view

I talked yesterday with Miers' pastor, Ron Key, who for 33 years (until a few weeks ago) was pastor of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas. “She started coming to church in 1980. She helped out with kids, made coffee, furnished donuts, served on missions committee. She worked out her faith in practical, behind-the-scenes ways. She doesn't draw attention to herself, she's humble, self-effacing." Key has still seen her in recent years because "her mother is 93. Harriet tries to get home as much as she can." When Key and Miers met in 1980, "I don’t know how strong her faith was at that time. She came to a place where she totally committed her life to Jesus. She had gone to church before, but when she came to our church it became more serious to her.... Our church is strong for life, but Harriet and I have not had any conversations on that…. We believe in the biblical approach to marriage."

This is just "some" of the reporting on her.

Quoted: I don't know.  But before I make you a member of the supreme court, I sure as hell would like to.

Thing is, YOU aren't appointing anyone to the Supreme Court so YOU don't have to know.  I know you would rather know, but the responsibility isn't yours.

we're screwed!!! there's only one thing left to do!!!
aaaaaaaaaaaagggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

Doing some westlaw searching...

THose of you with access, go get this case:

734 F.Supp. 1317


Our new justice was a member at large of the Dallas City Counsel.  This was a law suit over districting...

Here's what the case says about Ms. Meirs:

As to the three new Council Members, Glenn Box (District 3) testified that one of the reasons he supported the 10-4-1 was because no blacks had been able to win an at-large election and because he thought "time had passed" for the 8-3 system; [FN220] Harriet Miers (Place 9, at-large) testified that the 8-3 system was unfair because the number of single-member districts needed to be increased so there would be additional black and Hispanic representation on the Council;  and Jim Buerger (Place 10, at-large) testified that the 8-3 system failed "to provide adequate representation on a geographic basis" and "that historically [the 8-3 system] has not been to the advantage [of African-Americans] other than the fact that it was better than the at-large system."

So, not only was she sending money to Gore and other democrats, she was giving affidavits and/or testimony in "affirmative action" redistricting cases IN FAVOR OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

President Bush could be using live dogs as bait on his next fishing trip and the "Bush can do no wrong" crowd would still support it. I am extremely disappointed about this and the sad part is my list of GWB disappointments is getting longer everyday. I'm tired of hearing "well at least it wasn't Kerry nominating someone",  "It could have been Gonzales", or "we don't know what they are going to be like". Settling for an unknown is a bunch of crap because the Republicans will unlikely have the majority they do now in the future. Their upswing will correct itself,  most of the people I know who voted Republican last time are fed up with their spineless crap. These people, myself included, wouldn't vote Democrat but some just may not vote.

Why would Bush nominate someone who's never been a judge and who donated to Al Gore's campaign?

At the risk of sounding like a troll: Is he really that fucking stupid?

Quoted: Quoted: Why would Bush nominate someone who's never been a judge and who donated to Al Gore's campaign? At the risk of sounding like a troll: Is he really that fucking stupid? He likes her. Thats all it takes. Good thing bush can't run again. I frankly doubt I would vote for him

I'm glad we have him instead of Kerry, but I think he's a terrible President. Not as terrible as Kerry would have been, but that doesn't excuse him.

I'm waiting for the GWB Apologists to come swarming in for the kill any second now.

Quoted: President Bush could be using live dogs as bait on his next fishing trip and the "Bush can do no wrong" crowd would still support it.

And he could walk on water and people like you would complain that he couldn't swim.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: i still want john ashcroft... god, wouldn't that fight be glorious??? Sure the fight would be fun.  But that's just what we need.  A SCOTUS judge that would waste time ruling on covering nude statues.   or a scotus judge that would make history ruling on the rkba as an individual right.

I'd like to think we could find someone who would do that without putting that nutbag Ashcroft in another position of power.  

Quoted: Quoted: President Bush could be using live dogs as bait on his next fishing trip and the "Bush can do no wrong" crowd would still support it. And he could walk on water and people like you would complain that he couldn't swim.

I fully support him on some issues and completely diagree on others. I just have been disagreeing more lately. I voted for him twice but that doesn't mean I think he automatically gets a free pass. This could turn out nice but it very well could go the other way too. I have lost some confidence during the 2nd term, just a little disgruntled. Now you have me thinking about if he can really swim

According to a new item on Drudge, she appears to
be fervently pro-life. Of course, this means fuckall
towards establishing her as a constructionist. This
along with her pastor's statement that she is for a
"biblical definition" of marrage, I'd say that it is
clear that she is a devout Christian.

However, as we see from the President and from this
very site that all Christians != conservatives and
all conservatives != "strict constructionists."

I feel like I need to draw a Ven diagram.

Of all the possibilities, this is the best Bush could do???

Unreal. Defenders of this decision are blind loyalists or love taking huge risks for no reason at all.

Once again I am disapointed with our President and this administration.

I really thought that I voted for a Texas cowboy that was going to really
make a difference in this second term, clean house in Washington, and tell the liberal pussies
that run Hollywood, the media, and most of the world " how the cow was gonna eat the cabbage".
After all, he couldn't run again, so it was time to roll up his sleeves and get busy without having to worry about re-election.

I was wrong. And it's not just the President that frustrates me.

When the dems had power and the votes needed to pass things in Congress, they shoved it down our throats every chance they got.  Why the republicans don't have the balls to do the same to
them is beyond me. It seems to me like most of them are content to play nice with the dems and
try not to make waves in the hopes that they will be re-elected instead of actually making a difference.

This is the best chance conservatives have had in decades to get this country
back on track, and they are squandering it. What a waste of an opportunity.

Quoted: Once again I am disapointed with our President and this administration. I really thought that I voted for a Texas cowboy that was going to really make a difference in this second term, clean house in Washington, and tell the liberal pussies that run Hollywood, the media, and most of the world " how the cow was gonna eat the cabbage". After all, he couldn't run again, so it was time to roll up his sleeves and get busy without having to worry about re-election. I was wrong. And it's not just the President that frustrates me. When the dems had power and the votes needed to pass things in Congress, they shoved it down our throats every chance they got.  Why the republicans don't have the balls to do the same to them is beyond me. It seems to me like most of them are content to play nice with the dems and try not to make waves in the hopes that they will be re-elected instead of actually making a difference. This is the best chance conservatives have had in decades to get this country back on track, and they are squandering it. What a waste of an opportunity.

I agree. This was GWBush's "no mas" to the Democrats.

IMO, ever since early 2004, GWBush seems to have just lost all the wind in his sails. He has no "umph" in his step or his talk. Not even through last year's election.

I think the lack of finding "slam dunk WMDs" in Iraq has really been a bodyblow to him that just took the fight out of him. I really think he lost significant confidence in himself and those around him because of that.  

There's been nothing bold from him ever since.

I think the Dems and the media did a hell of a job stabbing him in the back over the WMD issue and the war in general and he has yet to recover any vigor or solid spine on any issue since.

At the end of 2003 he went to Baghdad and was buoyed by the exhuberance of those in the military and popular support at home. He captured Saddam to end 2003 and was riding high hopes of wrapping up the war in Iraq and beginning to bring much of the troops home during the re-election year. But 2004 brought both little evidence of WMDs and the over-hyped, out-of-control Abu Ghraib PR-debacle which (with the help of his enemies in the DNC and media) greatly undercut his own and our military's moral authority on the war and greatly rejuvinated the terrorists. His re-election came with a shakeup in his staff - but no real energizing within his entire camp.

IMO, GWBush is a fighter who's been dropped by an unexpected body blow and is now fighting the last rounds on "soft legs", just moving around trying not to get hurt again. I just don't see any fight in him anymore.

Quoted: President Bush could be using live dogs as bait on his next fishing trip and the "Bush can do no wrong" crowd would still support it. I am extremely disappointed about this and the sad part is my list of GWB disappointments is getting longer everyday. I'm tired of hearing "well at least it wasn't Kerry nominating someone",  "It could have been Gonzales", or "we don't know what they are going to be like". Settling for an unknown is a bunch of crap because the Republicans will unlikely have the majority they do now in the future. Their upswing will correct itself,  most of the people I know who voted Republican last time are fed up with their spineless crap. These people, myself included, wouldn't vote Democrat but some just may not vote.

And he could appoint the most hardcore 2nd Amendment proponent and the Bush bashing crowd would still shit all over it.

Give it a fucking rest.

The sky is falling..........the sky is falling...................fucking chicken littles combined with the boy that cried wolf.

So, you are disappointed.  I guess that means the end of the world because YOU are disappointed and it's all "spineless crap", because YOU say it is.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why would Bush nominate someone who's never been a judge and who donated to Al Gore's campaign? At the risk of sounding like a troll: Is he really that fucking stupid? He likes her. Thats all it takes. Good thing bush can't run again. I frankly doubt I would vote for him I'm glad we have him instead of Kerry, but I think he's a terrible President. Not as terrible as Kerry would have been, but that doesn't excuse him. I'm waiting for the GWB Apologists to come swarming in for the kill any second now.

Yeah, because he doesn't do everything exactly as YOU want it done makes him a terrible president.

Some of you people really need to get over yourselves.  YOU are not as important as you think.

Quoted: Of all the possibilities, this is the best Bush could do??? Unreal. Defenders of this decision are blind loyalists or love taking huge risks for no reason at all.

And those who scream "the sky is falling" have no clue as to what they are talking about.  No real facts about anything, just like to piss and moan.

Talk about blind.

Will somebody PLEASE look at my post earlier in this thread and explain why this woman's testimony IN FAVOR of revamping a city counsel district plan to put more blacks and latinos on the counsel does not spell REALLY BAD THINGS for the conservative cause?

Guys - get  this:

I just called both of my Senators here in TEXAS.   Both offices are getting more calls today to OPPOSE her nomination.



I STRONGLY advise all of you to call your Senators and urge them to oppose this new nominee.


CMOS  

These people, myself included, wouldn't vote Democrat but some just may not vote.

Its retarded not to vote!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why would Bush nominate someone who's never been a judge and who donated to Al Gore's campaign? At the risk of sounding like a troll: Is he really that fucking stupid? He likes her. Thats all it takes. Good thing bush can't run again. I frankly doubt I would vote for him I'm glad we have him instead of Kerry, but I think he's a terrible President. Not as terrible as Kerry would have been, but that doesn't excuse him. I'm waiting for the GWB Apologists to come swarming in for the kill any second now. Yeah, because he doesn't do everything exactly as YOU want it done makes him a terrible president. Some of you people really need to get over yourselves.  YOU are not as important as you think.

Yep, there's the first of many more who will come crashing in to vehemently support their man.

You're a pathetic sheep. You need to develop a mind for yourself for a change.