The Impact of Alito's Nomination on Individual Rights and Government Power

[loseyourname]

I can't believe this is happening in my country. That is, corruption never surprises me. What surprises me is willing acceptance of this abomination by the public.

Given the very unwelcoming reception of Miers and Bush's low approval ratings, what makes you so convinced that the public is willing to accept this?

I was very surprised to here this earlier, too. Apparently, Dr. James Dobson held a private meeting with Rove and he was assured that Miers belonged to a very conservative church that holds consistent pro-life views. This was obviously done to win's Dobson's endorsement, with the idea being that a popular evangelical like he could rally the party's far-right to approve the nomination. If so, this probably doesn't violate the letter of the Constitution's clause forbidding a religious test for public office, but it certainly violates the spirit of it.

 

[SOS2008]

I keep feeling like what comes around goes around for Bush, et al. In their attempt to convince the fundamentalists that Miers is "one of them" they committed the taboo of promoting her religious background. Oh my, their true colors have been revealed again.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Given the very unwelcoming reception of Miers and Bush's low approval ratings, what makes you so convinced that the public is willing to accept this?

I was very surprised to here this earlier, too. Apparently, Dr. James Dobson held a private meeting with Rove and he was assured that Miers belonged to a very conservative church that holds consistent pro-life views. This was obviously done to win's Dobson's endorsement, with the idea being that a popular evangelical like he could rally the party's far-right to approve the nomination. If so, this probably doesn't violate the letter of the Constitution's clause forbidding a religious test for public office, but it certainly violates the spirit of it.

... Not to mention that this makes a mockery of the process - his personal lawyer and fellow religious convert... I mean really, could he be any more obvious? And who can rightfully argue that she is one of the most eligible candidates. The cronyism is absolutely staggering and just a continuation of the incompetence shown during the FEMA/N.O. fiasco. So it certainly is also a betrayal of the Presidency and the Constitution on multiple levels. But then that's how I feel about almost everything of significance that he has done.

Of course this isn't about religion, it is about access to power.

 

[Gokul43201]

Has anyone given thought to the question : "If not Miers, then who ?"

This thought scares me...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Has anyone given thought to the question : "If not Miers, then who ?"

This thought scares me...

That's true! However, the more that the Bush regime and the Republican machine is weakened, the more influence that the democrats will have.

 

[BobG]

That's true! However, the more that the Bush regime and the Republican machine is weakened, the more influence that the democrats will have.

I almost agree, except Democrats would overwhelmingly vote against the type of nominee that ultra-conservatives would really like even if Bush were in a stronger position.

The key difference is that Republican Senators aren't so scared to veer off the Bush/party leadership line. Religious fundamentalists have already been losing Frist, even if he didn't have legal problems. While Frist still tries to at least stay close to the Bush doctrine, there doesn't seem to be very many Republican Senators afraid of Frist or Bush anymore. They're more concerned with the 2006 elections and who's most likely to succeed Bush in 2008.

Nominating a 'stealth' candidate for the Supreme Court was a sign of weakness in the first place. Withdrawing her nomination or, worse yet, having her nomination defeated, will only make Bush's position weaker.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think on Washington Week it was argued that this represents a shift in the R party - a rejection of the nutty right that took over almost two decades ago. It is also argued that the extreme right is now rejecting the Republicans based on betrayal over the Miers nomination. So hopefully we are close to the time when these extremists will leave the Republican party and go climb back under the rocks from which they came.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On the other hand, Bush is probably afraid that any true intellectual giant will "turn into liberal", as did Souter by some accounts.

 

[kat]

A look at the betting money reveals these numbers:

Confirm Miers: 66.1

Confirmed by over 50 votes: 77.1

Confirmed by over 60 votes: 63.2

Confirmed by over 70 votes: 28.1

So the smart money is saying she will get confirmed, and by somewhere between 60-70 votes.

Personally, I think a lot of this is "noise" that hides the fact that Miers is very "corporate friendly" and thus...will be backed by Rat's and Pubs' alike...for they've all sold their souls to the highest bidder... big corporate money.
Sooo Ivan..what are your thoughts on Reid's support of this "ultra-conservative" nominee?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sooo Ivan..what are your thoughts on Reid's support of this "ultra-conservative" nominee?

He's a mormon.

 

[Grogs]

A look at the betting money reveals these numbers:
Confirm Miers: 66.1
Confirmed by over 50 votes: 77.1
Confirmed by over 60 votes: 63.2
Confirmed by over 70 votes: 28.1

Kat:

Are those supposed to be odds? I've never seen odds put in that format. Or are they the percentage of people that bet for that particular occurance (as opposed to against?)

 

[pattylou]

An interesting point on Miers: What is being sold by Bush and company are not her beliefs, rather it is her specific church membership that allegedly qualifies her to be a member of the Supreme Court. :yuck:

Although I 'knew' this in a manner of speaking, you have phrased it so concisely that my gut wrenched as I read it.

Thanks?

 

[kat]

Kat:
Are those supposed to be odds? I've never seen odds put in that format. Or are they the percentage of people that bet for that particular occurance (as opposed to against?)

It's a trade exchange..you're speculating on an event. The contracts trade "between 0 and 100, you can think of the price at any time to be the percentage probability of that event occurring. "
www.intrade.com they've been more accurate then any of the polls in predicting outcomes.

 

[Informal Logic]

Earlier in the week, the Times's conservative columnist David Brooks savaged the columns Miers wrote in the early 1990s as president of the State Bar of Texas. "The quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian," Brooks wrote. Passages he called typical of her "vapid abstractions" included: "More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems."

Fein said he is more concerned about Miers's legal thinking than her syntax, especially as outlined in her three-page letter to then-Gov. Bush on June 11, 1995, when she was the former state bar president. The letter implored Bush to veto a bill moving through the Democratic-controlled legislature that would have prevented the state Supreme Court from capping lawyers' fees.

"This proposed law does violence to the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branch of our State's government and constitutes an assault upon the powers of the Supreme Court" just as it had fallen into "Republican hands for the first time," Miers wrote.

Fein said it is outrageous to invoke separation-of-powers arguments when a legislature — wisely or not — tries to foster free enterprise. By citing the GOP's new control of the Texas Supreme Court, he said, Miers seemed to be seeking a partisan outcome on shaky constitutional grounds.

Overall, Miers is being compared to Quayle - the bloggers and comedians are having a field day:

NBC's Jay Leno suggested the court may need "a woman who's had more courtroom experience, like Courtney Love."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9706138/page/2/

 

[SOS2008]

I found this interesting as well:

Miers is scheduled to meet with Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.. Both voted against confirming John Roberts as the court’s chief justice.

Feinstein said she remained open to voting to confirm Miers, citing in part concerns raised by conservative Republicans. “The way she’s being beaten up by the far right is very sexist. People should hold their fire and give people an opportunity to come before a hearing,” Feinstein said Sunday on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9727260/page/2/

I agree the fundamentalist conservatives probably are sexists. From this perspective it makes sense that the Dems are waiting for more information before taking a position regarding nomination of a minority. At the same time, the fundamentalist conservatives are likely to misread this as Dem support and therefore rally against Miers all the more. Hilarious. Her lack of qualifications and knowledge of constitutional law is the main reason she should not be approved.

 

[loseyourname]

Harriet Miers is a minority?

 

[kat]

in her field...certainly.

 

[SOS2008]

Harriet Miers is a minority?

From a civil rights perspective (discrimination, etc.) women are included in the classification of "minority" in general. The fundamentalists want to take women back to the time of being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Dems have long represented minorities better then the Repubs, so are trying to give Miers a full evaluation—that’s the irony.

 

[loseyourname]

From a civil rights perspective (discrimination, etc.) women are included in the classification of "minority" in general.

Seriously? I agree with kat that she's a minority amongst federal judges, but calling women in general a minority seems to be an awful misuse of the term. As of the last census, there were 5 million more females than males living in the United States. Maybe they should change the term to "historically disempowered" to more accurately reflect the situation.

 

[pattylou]

It's because we don't have equality.

Historically this manifest in the lack of freedoms we had wrt marriage, employment, and of course we had no vote.

At present many of these have been rectified but there is still a *huge* disparity in the amount we are paid compared to a man in an equal position, and there is still considerable bias when you look at promotions and so on in companies etc etc etc...

We aren't valued equally, so are considered minorities. Why do you think bush was pressured to pick "a hispanic, or a woman" ?

-Patty

p.s. "Disempowered" (strike the "historically") works as well. (historically it was worse, but we're not treated equally yet.)

 

[kat]

What she really should have said...

From a civil rights perspective (discrimination, etc.) women are included in the classification of "minority" in general. The fundamentalists want to take women back to the time of being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Dems have long exploited minorities better then the Repubs, so are trying to give Miers a full evaluation—that’s the irony.

 

[Astronuc]

Harriet Miers is a minority?

Anyone who thinks Bush is intelligent is in the minority.

 

[loseyourname]

It's because we don't have equality.
Historically this manifest in the lack of freedoms we had wrt marriage, employment, and of course we had no vote.

It seems whoever first used the term "minority" to refer to women flunked out of basic logic.

All minorities are discriminated against.
Women have been discriminated against.
Therefore, women are minorities.

That's an invalid syllogism. Maybe I'm being nitpicky, though. Technically speaking, I suppose a word can mean anything we say it means. Of course, it can get confusing when sometimes the word "minority" is used to refer to people who are actually part of a majority subpopulation.

 

[pattylou]

It seems whoever first used the term "minority" to refer to women flunked out of basic logic.
All minorities are discriminated against.
Women have been discriminated against.
Therefore, women are minorities.
That's an invalid syllogism. Maybe I'm being nitpicky, though. Technically speaking, I suppose a word can mean anything we say it means. Of course, it can get confusing when sometimes the word "minority" is used to refer to people who are actually part of a majority subpopulation.

I agree with you on the language angle. Maybe "Minority" was chosen because we were minorities in so many areas - government, the workplace, the polling booth.

We are still not represented accurately, in terms of numbers, in government. Women are a 'minority' in government. Maybe there is merit to the idea that the numbers in *population* are less important (in terms of representation/having interests met/etc) than numbers in the government.

But like you said, this is sort of tortured language.

 

[Informal Logic]

What she really should have said...

If you feel the Republicans do a better job of representing civil rights, why not make your case with a source instead of misquoting another member? Some of these people do not even want women to have access to birth control pills, including pharmacists. What party do you think they belong to?

Now it appears that Miers is flip flopping depending on the person she is speaking to. This kind of thing is what should concern people – not her religion or gender.

 

[Skyhunter]

Anyone who thinks Bush is intelligent is in the minority.

I think that in and of itself disqualifies her.

I mean the quality you want most in a Supreme Court Justice is a...judgement right?

 

[kat]

If you feel the Republicans do a better job of representing civil rights,

where did I say that? I'd be less inclined to say that they are better at representing then I would to say they are not as skilled at exploiting.

why not make your case with a source instead of misquoting another member?

presenting something she should have said and presenting something as what she said are two very different things. I did not misquote anyone.

Now it appears that Miers is flip flopping depending on the person she is speaking to. This kind of thing is what should concern people – not her religion or gender.

Oh..I find the possibility of her placement on the supreme court VERY disconcerting, but not for the same reasons others apparently have. *shrug*

 

[Skyhunter]

Oh..I find the possibility of her placement on the supreme court VERY disconcerting, but not for the same reasons others apparently have. *shrug*

Would you care to share your reasons?

 

[faust9]

Miers is really wowing the Senate Judiciary. Let's see, she has impressed the right wingnuts (Robertson and Dobbson), she has rankled the conservatives, she has delighted the dems by being, well we'll see but the dems are happy she was nominated for now. On top of everything to date you'd think she'd take the time to answer a few questions sent to here by the Judiciary committy. Nope. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/19/miers.nomination.ap/index.html

 

[SOS2008]

She isn't wooing these people:

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and senior Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont agreed to open Miers' hearings on Nov. 7, but also jointly sent a letter to the White House counsel asking her to more fully answer a questionnaire she turned in Tuesday.

"The comments I have heard range from incomplete to insulting," Leahy said.

"Senator Leahy and I took a look at it and agreed that it was insufficient," Specter said.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/supreme_court/miers/index.html

 

[faust9]

Bork of all people is putting his 2 cents in: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007424

I find it odd how the conservatives keep sloganeering "liberal courts" when 7 of 9 justices on the SC were appointed by conservative republican presidents. Odd don't you think?

 

[Informal Logic]

Bork of all people is putting his 2 cents in: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007424

I find it odd how the conservatives keep sloganeering "liberal courts" when 7 of 9 justices on the SC were appointed by conservative republican presidents. Odd don't you think?

I suppose the liberal court is why Bush won the 2000 election, why we have new eminent domain laws, bankruptcy laws, etc. The same goes for fundamentalists preaching how freedom of religion is being taken away. Repeating it makes it true (old and reliable brain washing technique).

 

[Astronuc]

Miers' Firm Received Large Windfall From Bush Campaign
'I've Never Seen That Kind of Money Spent on a Campaign Lawyer'

By FRANK BASS, AP

WASHINGTON (Oct. 21) - George W. Bush's rising political fortunes provided a windfall for Harriet Miers' law firm.

Campaign records show Bush's Texas gubernatorial campaigns paid Miers a total of $163,000 in legal fees, most of it for work done during the future president's 1998 re-election bid.

Some senators are planning to explore Miers' legal work for Bush during her confirmation process to be the newest Supreme Court justice, but the White House says it won't release any memos detailing that work.

"I think people across the country recognize the importance of attorney-client privilege," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission show that two payments of $70,000 were made to Miers' Locke, Purnell, Rain and Harrell firm in Dallas within a month of each other during the 1998 campaign. Another $16,000 in payments were made between March and December 1999.

The 1998 totals dwarfed the $7,000 Bush paid Miers' firm during his first run for governor in 1994, and are extremely large for campaign legal work in Texas, an expert said.

Oh, Bring in the Money!

 

[Astronuc]

Schumer: Miers Lacks Votes to Be Confirmed

WASHINGTON - A Democrat on the Senate committee that will consider Harriet Miers' nomination said Sunday that President Bush's Supreme Court choice lacks the votes now to be confirmed, saying there are too many questions about her qualifications.

"If you held the vote today, she would not get a majority either in the Judiciary Committee or the floor," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-New York. On the 18-member GOP-controlled committee, "there are one or two who said they'd support her as of now."

But the committee's chairman, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, rejected the notion that Miers' nomination was in trouble. Specter said most senators are waiting for the hearings before making up their minds "There are no votes one way or another," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051023/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_59;_ylt=AkeZ8R8URT2BWtd92PwVyihuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[Gokul43201]

I also heard that Miers' was one of the people that made a killing on the Rangers' sale...but I can't find anything (after 2 minutes with Google) to confirm or refute that.