Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

Miers Withdraws

Where does President Bush go from here? Should be interesting. I'm thinking a very conservative will be the replacement nominee to re-energize the base. We'll see.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

Janice Rogers Brown!

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Janice Rogers Brown!

[/ QUOTE ]

Im pulling for Luttig myself.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Miers Withdraws

Where does President Bush go from here? Should be interesting. I'm thinking a very conservative will be the replacement nominee to re-energize the base. We'll see.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reasons for withdrawal are incredible weak sauce. Im glad she is withdrawing but man this administration is looking more and more like a trainwreck every day. They will salvage a bit of credibility with me if they pick a SCOTUS nominee that is more in the mold of what Bush actually promised.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

I love the spin - it's cause Senators wanted access to executive privilege material - hilarious.

How about they wanted to know WHERE she STOOD - on ANYTHING - that's a terrible [censored] requirement for a SCOTUS - jesus - LOL.

RB

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I love the spin - it's cause Senators wanted access to executive privilege material - hilarious.

How about they wanted to know WHERE she STOOD - on ANYTHING - that's a terrible [censored] requirement for a SCOTUS - jesus - LOL.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I agree that is weak and horrible spin, I will also say that the Senators have no right to ask for documents which would compromise client privilege. And Im sure if someone wanted to access your dealings with your personal lawyer, youd be squawking as as loudly as you could. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

called it.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

but to submit a candidate with no documentation whatsoever in the hopes of getting her thru without scrutiny and then say it's the Senator's fault is bullshit - Bush should have thought of that beforehand.

in every respect that mattered, a poor candidate choice and I suspect if this administration had it's way it would have blindly shot itself in the foot as it did with Iraq and everything else, insisting it's not in trouble when it's foot is in the meat grinder -

as it stands, if Miers DID withdraw and wasn't asked to by GWB, she probably deserves some praise as the savior of the Republican Party, cause this administration can never admit when it's been stupid and would have let this divide the party had it continued.

That sort of one-minded ignorance is typical of those who come to work with a religious background. They believe their convictions are backed up by God and that sorta stifiles any dissent, esp. when the religious person is the CIC.

RB

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

Thank goodness. I have some hope again. It's very small and faint, but it's there.

natedogg

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

Harriet who?

btw, when is Bush ever going to fill that O'Connor vacancy?

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

He should nominate Bill Clinton.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

As a law student, I am hoping he appoints David Sklansky so that the SC's opinions will be easy to read.

"This law is unconstitutional. Do you see why?"

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

Thank goodness. I have some hope again.
******************************************
Me too.
I think Miers was another O'Conner/Souter clone with the exception that she would overturn Roe v Wade. Papers that came out the last few weeks indicated in the past she had leftward leanings on some issues. Many Supreme Court justices tend to drift leftward, I think she would have drifted leftward as well.

My dream is that O'Conner steps down without a replacement and Bush43 puts in a recess appointment. The Dems will scream bloody murder and it would be very entertaining to watch them go ballistic.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

The Democrats blew this one. They could have gone to bat for Miers as a "good compromise" candidate and got her through confirmation. Now they will face a real conservative and a GOP that knows it will have to fight to save face.

Can you say: Nuclear Option [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
My dream is that O'Conner steps down without a replacement and Bush43 puts in a recess appointment. The Dems will scream bloody murder and it would be very entertaining to watch them go ballistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it possible to put in a Supreme Court recess appointment?

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]

Is it possible to put in a Supreme Court recess appointment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and it has been done before several times. But why do it when their term would expire when Congress adjourns (end of 2006)? The 40 year appointment is the way to go obviously.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
He should nominate Bill Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton was disbarred, so I don't think he can ever be any type of judge. I might be incorrect on that though.

The Silver Lining
 

Jonathan Alter made a good point. The Miers nomination and withdrawal is a great moment for our country. Why? Because it shows that conservatives can think for theirselves. Instead of being toadies for Bush, they stood up as independent political actors. Although I might disagree with conservatives, I respect them. Bush, I have no respect for. The fact that the conservatives have shown distance from this evil man who is our President says really good things about them and the health of our republic.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He should nominate Bill Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton was disbarred, so I don't think he can ever be any type of judge. I might be incorrect on that though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, you don't even have to be a lawyer to be a federal judge. Thats just a tradition started by George Washington, not that anyone would think of breaking it.

Curiously enough all Supreme Court justices are admitted to the Supreme Court Bar, so you would automatically become a lawyer anyway (without ever having to study or pass an exam [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img])

Re: The Silver Lining
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Jonathan Alter made a good point. The Miers nomination and withdrawal is a great moment for our country. Why? Because it shows that conservatives can think for theirselves. Instead of being toadies for Bush, they stood up as independent political actors. Although I might disagree with conservatives, I respect them. Bush, I have no respect for. The fact that the conservatives have shown distance from this evil man who is our President says really good things about them and the health of our republic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awww, thanks Jedster [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, you don't even have to be a lawyer to be a federal judge. Thats just a tradition started by George Washington, not that anyone would think of breaking it.


[/ QUOTE ]

is this really true? i thought only local court elected judges could be without law degrees.

[ QUOTE ]
A bachelor’s degree and work experience usually constitute the minimum requirement for a judgeship or magistrate position. A number of lawyers become judges, and most judges have first been lawyers. In fact, Federal and State judges usually are required to be lawyers. About 40 States allow non lawyers to hold limited-jurisdiction judgeships, but opportunities are better for those with law experience. Federal administrative law judges must be lawyers and pass a competitive examination administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Some State administrative law judges and other hearing officials are not required to be lawyers.

[/ QUOTE ]
source

[ QUOTE ]

How about they wanted to know WHERE she STOOD - on ANYTHING - that's a terrible [censored] requirement for a SCOTUS - jesus - LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]
worked for roberts. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

Don't confuse Article I and Article III judges.

Administrative law judges are employees of federal agencies doing adjudication work. (These are the Article I judges) Congress and the agencies can set up any job requirements they want for these adjudicators, since they are really just agency employees.

Article III judges are the "real" independent federal judiciary including the supreme court and are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The only qualification for them is that they be appointed and confirmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article..._III_tribunals

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

Unsurprising.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]


How about they wanted to know WHERE she STOOD - on ANYTHING -

[/ QUOTE ]

In a perfect world (ha ha ha), where a judge stands on anything is not relevant. A judge should rule on the law, regardless of his or her beliefs, and regardless of the outcome. Many honest and intelligent people agree with the outcome of Roe v. Wade, but admit that it is bad law.

I have heard several screwball Senators recently bemoaning Supreme Court decisions "in favor" of large corporations and "against" the poor, the downtrodden, the working class, etc. That's not the Court's problem, or business. The problem is the inept lawmaking of our esteem legislators who cannot write a law that's constitutional. The Court doesn't (or at least shouldn't) strike down laws because of who "wins" or "loses", but because they are not constitutional. Partisans on both sides of the aisle seem to have a great deal of dificulty with this concept.

The reason to see work product from Harriet Miers is to see if she is at least a competent lawyer, and that she can think and correctly interpret the law. Her position on issues does not matter unless she lets those positions prejudice her decisions. There was no such documentation available on Miers, one way or the other. There was no indication that she was anything but an efficient manager, and a FOW (Friend of W). If W chooses not to present evidence of her legal abilities, that is his choice. And his attorney (whoever that might be [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] ) should have advised him of that potential problem before the nomination. W stuck her out there unsupported, and said trust me. Didn't work.

Roberts got confirmed without presenting his stands on various issues because he made a convincing case that his positions on issues would not affect his interpretation of the law, and because there was an overabundance of evidence and documentation that he was highly qualified.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

If memory serves, the only rule is that they be "learned in the law." Tradition has established that this means that they are attorneys.

Is there a bigger prag?
 

Than Harriet Miers right now?

[ QUOTE ]
"Let's move on," said Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi. "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Is there a bigger prag?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Than Harriet Miers right now?

[ QUOTE ]
"Let's move on," said Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi. "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?"

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

She had her 15 minutes of fame. Thats more than most of us get.

I still remember Haynesworth and Carswell and Bork and D. Ginsburg, do you?

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

Now let's see if my prediction when the nomination first came out will come true...Bush will nominate a VERY conservative justice who the liberals will disdain. When they become vocal in opposition he will cry foul saying that they won't let him pick anyone --- from Miers to the new one, liberals are just a bunch of obstructionists (ignoring, of course, the very vocal criticism from those on the same side of the aisle.)

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
When they become vocal in opposition he will cry foul saying that they won't let him pick anyone --- from Miers to the new one, liberals are just a bunch of obstructionists

[/ QUOTE ]

Conservative groups were the ones strongly against Miers, so I don't see how that would make much sense.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When they become vocal in opposition he will cry foul saying that they won't let him pick anyone --- from Miers to the new one, liberals are just a bunch of obstructionists

[/ QUOTE ]

Conservative groups were the ones strongly against Miers, so I don't see how that would make much sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

There were never any WMD in Iraq, but Cheney said there were. There was no attempt to purchase nuclear materials from Africa, but Bush said there was. The mission was not accomplished in May, 2003, but the Administration said it had been.

I hope that what you say is true, and I hope that people remember what actually happened here. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I will be very pleasantly surprised if it does.

Truth has been a major casualty of the Bush Presidency, even moreso than the Clinton Presidency, and that is saying something.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
Conservative groups were the ones strongly against Miers, so I don't see how that would make much sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that affects the strategy at all.

Re: Is there a bigger prag?
 

I think 0 minutes of fame &gt; 15 minutes of fame. That's why Vanilla Ice is such a prag.

Of course being famous for the long haul would be a mixed blessing.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
There were never any WMD in Iraq, but Cheney said there were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's certainly not the case...

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There were never any WMD in Iraq, but Cheney said there were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's certainly not the case...

[/ QUOTE ]

In August, 2002 Dick Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." My source? The White House. Here's a link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20020826.html

If you want to hear it yourself, here's a link: http://www.apfn.org/audio/Cheney_WMD_claim.mp3

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There were never any WMD in Iraq, but Cheney said there were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's certainly not the case...

[/ QUOTE ]

In August, 2002 Dick Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." My source? The White House. Here's a link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20020826.html

If you want to hear it yourself, here's a link: http://www.apfn.org/audio/Cheney_WMD_claim.mp3

[/ QUOTE ]

True but you can't say he never had them. We gave him some in the 80s and he used them, lol. Sanctions and inspections seem to have been effective though, and he did not have them by 2000. Sure Democrats said he had them in 2002 as well as the Bushies, but it was the administration that presented dubious evidence as fact and led us to war unfaithfully. Sadly, dems, moderates, and even myself paroted these same claims and even believed he probably had weapons. The Bush crew gave us distorted information. To this day, with the core administation as secret as it is, we still can't be sure of their actual reason for pushing this war thorugh under the cloak of an imminient threat.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
There were never any WMD in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? At any time? I'm gonna give you a quick chance to retract that before I slap you with reality.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There were never any WMD in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? At any time? I'm gonna give you a quick chance to retract that before I slap you with reality.

[/ QUOTE ]


Fine. To satisfy the nits:

There were never any WMD in Iraq when Cheney said there were.

FMP

But, to repeat, the important point is:

[ QUOTE ]
In August, 2002 Dick Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." My source? The White House. Here's a link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20020826.html

If you want to hear it yourself, here's a link: http://www.apfn.org/audio/Cheney_WMD_claim.mp3<br />
[/ QUOTE ]

Go ahead and slap me all you want. Cheney lied. And that's the truth.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

[ QUOTE ]
Janice Rogers Brown!

[/ QUOTE ]

This would swing me right back around into the Bush camp. But what do you think the chances are she gets nominated? 20% at best?

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

I'm going to give you another chance to correct yourself.

First I'm going to give you the definition of lie:

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

So for Cheney to lie, he would have to know there were no WMDs in Iraq. OR he would have to, based on the evidence presented to him have a very strong argument.

Similarly, other administrations have come up with the same argument that there were WMDs in Iraq.

So either everyone is lying or our intelligence was simply wrong. It could have been through incompetence, it could have been through completely making things up, or it could have been through using sources that made up things for their own purposes.

That's why perjury is so hard to prove. There is quite a difference between being dead wrong and lying.

Re: Miers Withdraws Nomination
 

Luttig would be filibustered...several Dems have already stated that a nominee in the mold of Luttig/Scalia would end the filibuster truce.