Miers' qualification

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lol. In Bush We Trust.

[/ QUOTE ]

A SCOTUS pick is not made for the benefit of those who hate Bush. They disagree with what he wants to accomplish anyway.

You opinion is irrelevant as far as his pick goes. But among those who share his basic goals, he has shown himself to be able to pick the right people to advance those goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, in an ideal society, we wouldn't be picking SCOTUS justices based on political idealogy. So while it MAY be a good choice for conservatives, that says nothing as to the actual merit. You speak as if only conservatives backing Bush should even have an opinion on the issue.

[El Barto]

In an ideal society, judges wouldn't be super-legislatures making up law instead of letting Congress and the states make the law.

Like it or not, the court is a political branch of government, and the politicians selected to be on the court are in a way elected indirectly (by the people's choice of President). So Clinton gets to pick liberal justices and Bush gets to pick conservative justices.

I would rather have a court that was not political, but that horse is out of the barn.

Bush promised certain kinds of judges. The people elected him. His only responsibility is to keep his promises, and yes he can ignore what you want - you didn't vote for him.

[Autocratic]

But what you said was that non-Bush supporters' opinions on this are irrelevant, which is ridiculous.

And as you said, an ideal society would have less partisan judges. But because of a lack of ambition, no one is willing to try for such a simple concept - 9 moderates on the court. Instead, everyone tries to "balance" it, since it's never quite conservative enough for the right, and never liberal enough for the left.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
he can ignore what you want - you didn't vote for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are way off the mark here. He's supposed to represent all the people, not just those that voted for him.

As for picking SCOTUS nominees based on loyalty to his politics as opposed to qualifications, that goes against everything people from BOTH sides of the aisle say.

-ptmusic

[ QUOTE ]
Bush promised certain kinds of judges. The people elected him. His only responsibility is to keep his promises, and yes he can ignore what you want - you didn't vote for him.

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on now. The problem with this is that the UN, the SC and other institutions that are supposed to be non-partisan are being treated as political wings of the Republican party. So Bush wants the UN to be ruled by John Bolton. Someone in his own party was literally in tears speaking out against him on the Senate floor. His duty is to the American people, whether or not him, Karl Rove or anyone else want it to be. The American people do not want Bolton. The American people want transparent nominees. His approval ratings are in the HIGH THIRTIES. It does not take a Yale graduate to understand there's something wrong with capabilities as a decision maker and leader. If you want this guy to make decisions based solely on partisan politics, then you'll have to live with the consequences. It took a lot of hard work and strategic ingenuity for the Republicans to finally take control of the government, capped off with the mother of all approval rating boosters: a war (or two or three). Bush has completely erased everything. But that's good for the liberals. I'd say for every point dropped below a 45% approval rating it will take another year for Republicans to dig themselves out of the hole they're digging. And that's just fine with me.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush wants the UN to be ruled by John Bolton.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Bolton is just the US representative there. He represents how Bush wants the US to deal with the UN for now. (Namely, to stop letting them run all over us)

The SCOTUS is not non-partisan. It could have been, perhaps should have been, but politics has infested the SCOTUS and people have differences over what the proper judicial philosophy of this country should be. Bush is right to put his view of judicial philosophy on the court, and Clinton was right to put his on. Thats how the system works, like it or not.

[tolbiny]

"Miers is correctly classified "insufficient data to determine her ability." Bush and his close aides know her true talents, your TV and law school "legal experts" are in the dark. They can not honestly say she is not in the top 100 legal minds, because they just Don't Know!"

But she has to be confirmed- and the reason she has to be confirmed is he founders wanted a serperation of powers. We are not to rely on Bush's opinion solely, but to have the poeples' representatives take his pick and understand for themselves weather she is qualified or not.

OHhh- and considering its a frickin' lifetime appointment, a "lets wait and see if shes any good" seems a little, how the french say- idiotic.

[tolbiny]

"(Namely, to stop letting them run all over us)"

When did the UN ever "run all over us?"

[ChristinaB]

Monkey Boy has appointed:


Church Lady



Daddy must be pleased.

I ususally don't resort to tactics like this, but if you honestly believe the UN runs all over us you've got your head completely up your ass. I think Bush's problem with the UN is that he thinks it's ineffective. Not giving in to our every demand and whim is not the equivalent of running all over us. The UN runs over absolutely no one, as it has no enforcement mechanism. The idea of the UN is to foster world unity, not bring the world to our knees. I believe that's a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. It's the UNITED NATIONS. Not the UNITED STATES.