Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The coming Miers mire

  1. Oct 3, 2005 #1
    [SOLVED] The coming Miers mire

    New York Times 10/3

    Another 'most qualified candiate' from the President's friendly clique.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 3, 2005 #2

    kat

    User Avatar

    Oh My Gawd!

    Bush Fails to Pick Stranger for Supreme Court
     
  4. Oct 3, 2005 #3

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Bush needs to get out.

    Miers has no judicial experience, but is a lawyer.

    But she was also deputy chief of staff to the president, and given Bush's history, that's problematic. :rolleyes:

    On the other hand, "apparently Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urged the president to consider Miers," according to the AP.

    Bush Taps Harriet Miers for High Court the link is probably good for some limited period on Yahoo.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2005
  5. Oct 3, 2005 #4

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The reason Bush doesn't think he knows any strangers is simple:

    "people are strange, when you're a stranger....
    no-one remembers your name, when you're strange..."
    The Doors, on why Pres. Bush couldn't recall any strangers.

    Uh, sorry, :uhh: .... couldn't resist
     
  6. Oct 3, 2005 #5
    Meirs may not have prior juducial experience but she has good sense and a history of making sound decisions.

    Extensive experience is detrimental if that experience is in making bad judgments.
     
  7. Oct 3, 2005 #6

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well that's an important point.

    With two divergent political views on something like the 'right' to an abortion, or more generally, the 'right' of privacy, which is not explicitly stated, then one will find a situation where either of two sides considers a judgement 'bad' if it contradicts the political view of either.

    What might be 'bad' in the mind of a 'conservative', might be good or great to a 'liberal', and vice versa.

    Bush and many supporters do not want a justice to 'legislate". But that could mean, they simply don't want judges to 'interpret' the law, which is one of the functions of the Supreme Court going back to John Marshall.

    I would hope if Miers is approved, she is simply honest, fair and impartial, and does not harbor a political agenda.
     
  8. Oct 3, 2005 #7

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, the article I read this morning (link below) said that Miers was recommended to Bush by Senate Democratic Leader Reid...Bush was warned any of his other potential picks would meet with strong partisan resistance. The quotes from the Dems sounded positive, that they want someone who has real experience in a courtroom as a lawyer (bringing in a Supreme Court Justice who has no previous experience as a judge is not unprecedented). The biggest resistance to her appointment appears to be the far-right conservative Republicans (okay, some of that is redundant), because she is likely to be pro-choice (I've haven't seen anyone come out and make a definitive statement yet if her position on that is known).

    But, it's a little too early to tell. She might be a good candidate despite the lack of a judicial record; she does have plenty of real courtroom experience at least, and was President of the Texas Bar Association, so she's not a nobody in the legal profession by any means. I'm not going to dismiss her just because Bush picked her.

    http://apnews.excite.com/article/20051003/D8D0M6D00.html
     
  9. Oct 3, 2005 #8
    Which is more important, how a judge would rule on a single issue like Roe v Wade , or all of the other cases (thousands) that the judge will face in a 20+ year tenure?

    Single issues are the most dangerous basis I can think of to support a SC Judge
     
  10. Oct 3, 2005 #9
    Not if she chose to associate herself with the "Big Wuh", other than getting a lifetime appointment to a dream job, that is. OK,OK...she ran the Lottery Commission and was head of the State Bar of Texas...so what.

    I had thought for a while that I could stop doing damage control for all the people from Texas that are perpetuating the FUBAR government and now this. I shudder to think that he'll probably balk on her and try to slip in "whats-his-face" with the glasses that said that the Geneva Convention is outdated, quaint, and the "Big Wuh" (Sweet Daddy G) dosen't REALLY have to follow it if he dosen't want to.
     
  11. Oct 3, 2005 #10
    A person's position on many of these issues may be indicative as to their general philosophy. Prochoicers are more likely to agree on the right to privacy, for example, than to disagree.
     
  12. Oct 3, 2005 #11
    The White House counsel. He actually he picks his personal legal counsel. Wow.

    Is anyone else freaked out by how much both judicial appointees are always extremely smiling? I looked at Miers today, her face looks just Roberts' to me. Is that natural?
     
  13. Oct 3, 2005 #12

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Miers is an interesting choice. She looks like she was a Democrat until the early 90's, then has contributed to Republican campaigns ever since.

    Miers's campaign contributions

    Interesting web site. Today's most popular search for campaign contribution history was for Harriet Miers, followed by John Roberts, followed by Jodie Foster. Why the interest in Jodie Foster's campaign contributions?

    (Wow! Martha Stewart had made over $180,000 in political contributions! Most interesting is her listed occupation(s): Martha Stewart Omnimedia founder; felon)

    (I wonder if Mayor Nagin regrets the $1000 contribution he made to Bush's primary campaign in 2000)
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2005
  14. Oct 3, 2005 #13
    The extreme right's power does not come from numbers but from being passionately persistent. Their claim that Bush owes them his reelection is a bit of an exaggeration, and that they expect him to represent their minority agenda at the high cost of congressional war is deplorable. Bush has been trying to select conservatives, but this is not good enough for these people. They want assurance that the candidate will be extreme like them, and do not care what this will do to the unity of our nation. What do they teach in church these days?
     
  15. Oct 3, 2005 #14
    I thought some of you would find this information interesting.
     
  16. Oct 3, 2005 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    When I heard that it was his personal lawyer I about came unglued...as is usual these days. But it seems that Miers had a sort of pre-approval by the Dems in Congress.
     
  17. Oct 3, 2005 #16
    She is an evangelical Christian. She switched from Democrat to Republican, allegedly, over the pro-choice/life issue.
     
  18. Oct 3, 2005 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    TEST

    The thread seems to be locking up...

    Hmmm, seems okay now. Never mind. :biggrin:
     
  19. Oct 3, 2005 #18

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Where do you get that info?

    She has been a board member for Exodus Ministries and Pioneer Bible Translators, so it's possible. She's also been on the board of about 10 or so other community organizations, including Goodwill Industries, Meals on Wheels, Dallas Women's Foundation, Dallas Women's Center, and was a trustee for the Dallas Police and Fire Pension Board.
     
  20. Oct 3, 2005 #19

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    And let's not forget that Reid is pro-life. So Bush was able to find another stealth nominee--she has even less of a record than Roberts, and her service for Bush can't be released. So if she ducks questions, we have no idea who we are placing in a lifetime appointment in the highest court in the land. But, what really concerns me is I understand she says Bush is one of the smartest men she knows. :eek: Yeh, in a tricky-slicky kind of way, maybe... :yuck:
     
  21. Oct 3, 2005 #20

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    This part is what concerns me. We still have no idea who Roberts is and now another complete unknown is being nominated. For both, you can probably assume a vague conservative leaning, but I'm not that ecstatic about what has become a common practice of just snubbing the Senate and ignoring their right to make an informed yes/no vote. The idea that winning the Presidential election entitles someone to unlimited powers that the Senate has no right to question doesn't quite cut it. (This isn't something new to Bush - it's gotten worse everytime a president's nominee failed).

    Unrelated, but ironic. The male Ginsburg was rejected during Bush 41's presidency because Ginsburg admitted smoking marijuana. In '92, the President we elected was a draft dodger (even if dodged legally) that admitted trying marijuana, but he didn't inhale. By '00, we elected a president that dodged the draft and dodged doing the service that allowed him to dodge the draft, plus had some significant substance abuse problems. Are we going the wrong direction?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The coming Miers mire
  1. The British are coming (Replies: 10)

Loading...