Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

Harriet Miers will allow him to do whatever he wants with the detainees whenever a case comes to the Supreme Court. Roberts also worked in a conservative White House.

Bush is going to be sued over Iraq, Miers and Roberts will throw the cases out.

Bush is stacking the deck to cover his ass.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

The government is exempt from lawsuits. He can't be sued for decisions he makes in office that negatively affect a certain percentage of the population.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

[ QUOTE ]
The government is exempt from lawsuits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you think they are suing when they make habeus corpus challenges against illiegal detentions?

The government.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

Okay, let me rephrase that. Individuals in office can't be sued. GWB will not be sued over Iraq, because he can't be.

The suits you are referring to are against the policies directly and not aimed at individuals.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

Once again, a choice job goes to an insider crony with no experience - The woman has never sat one day on the bench as a judge, and now we're just gonna drop her right into the highest court in the land without a second's thought.

That's handy though...none of that messy background that might indicate what her political leanings are - she can lie to suit her needs when testifying before the Senate - that'll be handy...

as a Crony you can be damn sure nothing that Monkey boy likes will ever be voted against while she's there -

the [censored] idiot - at least this unqualified appointee won't be able to turn a natural disaster into a national clusterfuck the way Brownie handled Katrina - but I'm sure she can screw up the Constitution pretty bad...

RB

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

If you look around places like redstate.org, it doesn't look like his base is too happy with this either- most notably because she contributed money to Al Gore.

Personally, sure it's bullshit that he keeps putting his friends ahead of the American people... but the rumor is that Miers is on the Democrats' "no filibuster" list so I can't say I'm unhappy.

Remember Howard Dean's allegations that Bush told him (when they were both Governors) that he couldn't stand the hard right-wingers... calling them "nuts"? Well this would seem to lend more credibility to that...

I've got to call up some of my Republican friends and laugh at them now.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

I don't really like it, but probably for the same reasons the libs don't either. Perhaps there is a larger scheme in the lurk though, and she is being thrown out there to be dissed as an inexperienced and unqualfied jurist. Then the real deal gets nominated...

btw, "monkeyboy" is pretty juvenile.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

Are you a conservative Republican who I can laugh at?

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

You can laugh if you want to. I don't like to be pigeonholed as either, although I certainly would take offense at being described a "liberal democrat" (yuck)

Then again, if you were taking the time to laugh at "conservative Republicans"- haven't you had fodder enough long before this???

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

Sure but it's infinitely more enjoyable when it's made blatantly obvious that you've been decieved / betrayed.

You were promised a justice "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas".

And to top it off, she's 60 friggin years old!

I get happier by the minute. You've got to be wondering "what's the use in even having a 55 seat majority?"

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sure but it's infinitely more enjoyable when it's made blatantly obvious that you've been decieved / betrayed.

You were promised a justice "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas".

And to top it off, she's 60 friggin years old!

I get happier by the minute. You've got to be wondering "what's the use in even having a 55 seat majority?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is former White House insider David Frum on the choice:

"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 nobody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States. And 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.

I am not saying that she 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 [any] good reason to believe either of these things. In other words, we are being asked by this president to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant."

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

[ QUOTE ]
"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 nobody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do we need to go any further than this? Who gives a crap what her politics are, if this is true? This is the United States freaking Supreme Court, for Christ's sake.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

Well could one not argue that the Supreme Court deserves outstanding lawyers?

Every lawyer is "intelligent"; but compared to everyone else on Bush's short list I'm afraid Miers no longer qualifies.

Hell I don't think SMU grads even find normal lawyer jobs that easily.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

[ QUOTE ]
And 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think is the only reason why she would be good on the Supreme Court. If she is a legal moderate, as many people seem to feel she would be, she would be a good choice to replace O'Connor, as she was very moderate.

That said, it's the only, POSSIBLE reason that she would be a good choice. She has no experience, no qualifications and is far from one of the greatest legal minds in America. It's clearly just another example of George Bush putting his friends in the highest positions of government in order that he surround himself by a close knit group of insiders to shield him from any possible kind of dissent. With the SC stacked the way it is, no piece of conservative legislation and no part of the conservative agenda will be struck down in the next 10 years.

Everyday, I trust less and less the ability of our government to police itself and fear more and more that ew are turning into an oligarchy of wealthy Texas industrialists.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you a conservative Republican who I can laugh at?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can laugh at me. I am dissappointed. I got a feeling that we have a Souter on our hands. I wanted another Roberts.

I hope that I'm wrong.

-Gryph

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

[ QUOTE ]
With the SC stacked the way it is, no piece of conservative legislation and no part of the conservative agenda will be struck down in the next 10 years.

Everyday, I trust less and less the ability of our government to police itself and fear more and more that ew are turning into an oligarchy of wealthy Texas industrialists.


[/ QUOTE ]

To assuage your fears, here is another quote from a neo-con staunch Bush defender. This is from Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on the nomination: "I'm disappointed, depressed, and demoralized."

If Bush loyalists are using this type of language within minutes of the nomination, liberals should be thrilled with this pick. Unless this is some type of Machiavellian plot to make her look moderate to liberal so she will sail through the confirmation process with no filibuster or substantial opposition from Democrats. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

Here is another quote from a conservative on this nomination. This quote comes from National Review editor Rich Lowry:

"Just talked to a very pro-Bush legal type who says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely. Her long history of activity with ABA is not encouraging from a conservative perspective--few conservatives would spend their time that way. In short, he says the pick is “deplorable.” There may be an element of venting here, but thought I'd pass along for what it's worth. It's certainly indicative of the mood right now... "

So far we have seen prominent conservatives use terms like "ashamed, embarrassed, disappointed, depressed, deplorable and demoralized." This should be interesting.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is another quote from a conservative on this nomination. This quote comes from National Review editor Rich Lowry:

"Just talked to a very pro-Bush legal type who says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely. Her long history of activity with ABA is not encouraging from a conservative perspective--few conservatives would spend their time that way. In short, he says the pick is “deplorable.” There may be an element of venting here, but thought I'd pass along for what it's worth. It's certainly indicative of the mood right now... "



[/ QUOTE ]

It's deja vu all over again. In 1970, Nixon nominated Carswell to the Court. The general opinion was that Carswell was undistinguished and mediocre. Roman Hruska, a Republican Senator from Nebraska came to his defense:

[ QUOTE ]
On January 19, 1970, president Richard Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court. While Carswell's nomination was promptly rejected by the Senate, Nebraska Senator Roman Hruska presented a novel argument in his defense:


"Even if he was mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers," Hruska declared. "They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there."



Hruska, Roman Lee (1904- ) American politician, Congressman (1952-1955), U.S. Senator (Nebraska, 1955-1977)


[Sources: National Review, 22 Dec, 1997]

[/ QUOTE ]

Continuing this old Republican tradition, it looks like Bush is an Equal Opportunity Employer, willing to look beyond conventional standards, such as job qualifications, in an attempt to achieve a level playing field.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is another quote from a conservative on this nomination. This quote comes from National Review editor Rich Lowry:

"Just talked to a very pro-Bush legal type who says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely. Her long history of activity with ABA is not encouraging from a conservative perspective--few conservatives would spend their time that way. In short, he says the pick is “deplorable.” There may be an element of venting here, but thought I'd pass along for what it's worth. It's certainly indicative of the mood right now... "

So far we have seen prominent conservatives use terms like "ashamed, embarrassed, disappointed, depressed, deplorable and demoralized." This should be interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]


See my conspiracy theory post above. Maybe a few republicans get convinced that she is simply not qualified and then the *real* nominee steps out of the shadows. At least I hope so.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

[ QUOTE ]
See my conspiracy theory post above. Maybe a few republicans get convinced that she is simply not qualified and then the *real* nominee steps out of the shadows. At least I hope so.

[/ QUOTE ]You're going to have to get more imaginative than that to find any realistic logic behind this choice that conservatives might like.

I highly suspect Bush went against his advisors on this one. Since Bush readily admits that he doesn't follow the news, or read newspapers, and with increasing reports that he's hostile towards hearing any bad news ... maybe he's just not aware that his putting friends above the American people has recently been spotlighted ... and not in a cute, endearing loyal cowboy way that he expects.

Hell, maybe Laura made the pick. "Why don't you pick Harriet? She's a nice person."

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're going to have to get more imaginative than that to find any realistic logic behind this choice that conservatives might like.

I highly suspect Bush went against his advisors on this one. Since Bush readily admits that he doesn't follow the news, or read newspapers, and with increasing reports that he's hostile towards hearing any bad news ... maybe he's just not aware that his putting friends above the American people has recently been spotlighted ... and not in a cute, endearing loyal cowboy way that he expects.

Hell, maybe Laura made the pick. "Why don't you pick Harriet? She's a nice person.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are very close on this one, Grey. In recent days, many conservatives, Michelle Malkin being one, have been extremely critical of the Bush administration on this front. These conservatives are tired of Bush appointing political cronies in these important positions.

We've heard for sometime now that Karl Rove is running things, and political considerations are a driving factor in all decisions; on this one, and some other recent ones, the White House seems extremely politically tone deaf.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

This pick boggles the mind because it puts republicans in horrible spot. Never being a judge Miers had no paper trail and since she has always been a lawyer she can just say that she was representing her clients to almost any question she is asked. Some judiciary republicans were not as pleased with Roberts as they talked re: brownback and Coburn. These guys want someone they know will overturn Roe and gave Roberts a pass because he was extremely well qualified, telegenic, and they figured the next nominee's paper trail would assure them he was in the mold of Thomas & Scalia. I just don't understand why Bush would pick Miers. It's a hard case to make that she is the best candidate in the nation for supreme court. Can the republicans all of a sudden encourage the nominee to answer questions they told Roberts not too? Will they try to filibuster? Will they vote no? It will be fun to watch it play out. The democrats need to say good things about Miers and nothing else. Let the news story be social conservatives are upset. I have always thought that Bush wasn't a social conservative and was just playing up that card to get them to vote for him. I guess he figures he doesn't have to run again so he'll do whatever he wants. This could be a good time for the republican party to distance themselves from Bush and position themselves better for the 06 races.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hell I don't think SMU grads even find normal lawyer jobs that easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zing!

At least SMU will always have football.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

I hate to say it - but ever since Katrina, rumor is he's been off the wagon and making poor decisions...

I can see him having a few one night and saying "hey baby, - wanna be on the Supreme Court? I can arrange that - hell, my political capital is almost totally spent anyways, let's go out with a bang"

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...iers/story.jpg

I'm serious - her only real redeeming asset is she's a close friend of the President - that's it - nothing to suggest she's the best person for the job - not even close.

My biggest concern is that liberals think she might be a moderate, so they're being cautious - it's the Right Wingers that this is really making angry - but either way her political viewpoints lean, I don't like the idea of someone's first judgeship being on the Supreme Court - I don't think that's wise.

RB

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to say it - but ever since Katrina, rumor is he's been off the wagon and making poor decisions...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and there was a "confirmed" rumor on another forum that Doyle and Chip Reese were thrown out of the Bellagio last week for collusion. Lot's of that bad stuff going around. Inquiring minds want to know.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the idea of someone's first judgeship being on the Supreme Court - I don't think that's wise.


[/ QUOTE ]

The topic of non-judges on the SC was mentioned on the news tonight. If I remember the numbers, out of 109 SC judges, 40 were never judges before. These include Earl Warren and Renquist. I (and others more learned than I) think that it is a good idea in principle, as long as the person is a top-notch legal mind, bringing other experience and views to the court.

The early returns on the top-notch legal mind part in this case seem to leave something to be desired.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

"So far we have seen prominent conservatives use terms like 'ashamed, embarrassed, disappointed, depressed, deplorable and demoralized'."

You mean they have seen the light about the current state of their party and the administration? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Frank

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to say it - but ever since Katrina, rumor is he's been off the wagon and making poor decisions...

[/ QUOTE ]

Just as an aside, are you sure it's off the wagon? I always thought he would be back on the wagon.

\"She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man...\"
 

This from David Frum on the National Review web site:

I believe I was the first to float the name of Harriet Miers, White House counsel, as a possible Supreme Court. Today her name is all over the news. I have to confess that at the time, I was mostly joking. Harriet Miers is a capable lawyer, a hard worker, and a kind and generous person. She would be an reasonable choice for a generalist attorney, which is indeed how George W. Bush first met her. She would make an excellent trial judge: She is a careful and fair-minded listener. But US Supreme Court?

In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions - or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect.

The harsh truth is, at this 5 year mark in the administration's life, that its domestic achievements are very few. The most important, the tax cut, will likely prove temporary, undermined by the administration's overspending. The education bill, the faith-based initiative, and the rest do not amount to much. Social Security reform will not happen; work on tax reform has not even begun; the immigration proposals are disasters that will never become law.

Civil justice reform should be credited to Congress, not the White House. After that, what is there other than the Patriot Act and of course judicial nominations? But even on judicial nominations, thus far the president has only preserved the old balance on the court. If he is actually to advance his principles, he will need a real conservative leader: a Luttig, for example, a Michael McConnell - or perhaps Senator Mitch McConnell if the president is concerned about confirmability. The Senate will always confirm a fellow-senator, and McConnell is one of the body's outstanding conservative intellects. This is no time for the president to indulge his loyalty to his friends. All this year, the president has been testing the limits of his support. Well we are at the limit now, and anything less than a superb choice for the O'Connor vacancy will overstep it.

Re: Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court
 

you're on the wagon when you quit - if you fall off, you started drinking again.

RB

\"Cronyism at its worst\"
 

More piling on from conservatives, this time from the Yale Federalist Society.

"A terrible, terrible pick. Cronyism at its worst. It's one thing to staff the executive branch with loyal incompetents - they'll disappear when the Bush Administration does. But to try to cram one onto the Supreme Court - to put the country under this woman's thumb for 10, 15, 20 years - that's inexcusable. Bush had an incredibly deep bench to pick from this time; even if he wanted to limit himself to just female candidates, there are at least a dozen who are all genuinely qualified. Instead he picks Miers, who's astonishingly undistinguished and who's spent the last decade as a Bush apparatchnik.

This isn't about ideology. I frankly don't give a rat's ass who she gave money to when. She could be a Clarence Thomas clone - she could be the second coming of George-f***ing-Sutherland for all I care - and it would still be wrong for the President to treat the Supreme Court as just another patronage position into which he can put "his" people.

I know that FedSoc doesn't endorse candidates, but I do. If the Senate has any spine they'll reject Miers 100-0 and send Bush back to the drawing board."