Harriet Miers Speaks

[John Ho]

Thomas is a guy who makes up his mind before he hears arguments. That would explain why he NEVER asks questions.

The guy is a politician when he should be a judge.

[BluffTHIS!]

Why Justice Thomas doesn't ask questions from an online article:

"Some of those same journalists have criticized Justice Thomas for not asking questions during oral arguments. He said, "I think if we invite a person in, we should at least listen to what he has to say." In words that sounded close to what I'd once heard from a Catholic priest, he said that you should really listen if you are listening to a person. If you are thinking of your next question as the person is speaking, some of your attention is not on listening to the person.

He further explained that he had not asked questions in high school, in college, or in law school. "When I was asked a question, I answered it, but I did not ask questions." He explained that he had grown up in a rural area in the South where there remained a major influence of an African language. As he grew up, many in that area spoke a mixture of English and this old language. As a consequence, while he learned to speak standard English-only, he would edit his speech and his words in his brain before speaking. This encouraged him to do more listening than speaking."

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
Irealize the sentences are taken out of context, but if she is confirmed, I don't see many rushing out to read her opinions based on this sampling of her prose style.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, you realize that your criticism of her intellect is flawed, and then go ahead with it anyway. You infer that her opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court will be empty generalizations because of a few sentences she wrote in the Texas Bar Journal (because, that's the same thing).

So in your mind, a Supreme Court Justice should never have written an uninteresting sentence.

I just don't understand why Democrats aren't running this country right now!

[BluffTHIS!]

Shaun,

You are trying to apply reason to democratic political rhetoric. They don't mix.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Irealize the sentences are taken out of context, but if she is confirmed, I don't see many rushing out to read her opinions based on this sampling of her prose style.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, you realize that your criticism of her intellect is flawed, and then go ahead with it anyway. You infer that her opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court will be empty generalizations because of a few sentences she wrote in the Texas Bar Journal (because, that's the same thing).

So in your mind, a Supreme Court Justice should never have written an uninteresting sentence.

I just don't understand why Democrats aren't running this country right now!

[/ QUOTE ]

Those sentences aside, it's pretty easy to see that Miers is not likely to be of the "intellectual giant" breed, which is the point.

[BluffTHIS!]

As if the great majority of justices both now or in history have been. Typical democrat ploy of trying to raise the bar when they aren't the ones doing the nominating.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just out of curiosity, who's your favroite justice, natedogg?

lemme guess... thomas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Got it in one.

He only gets better with time too. His recent term was stellar, dissenting on both Raich and Kelo. Thomas is the best. Scalia is nothing but a fair-weather federalist, but Thomas, that is a man with principle.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Right on...nate...

I like Scalia for his writing and humor, but Thomas is the perfect example of what a justice should be. The man would fight with everything in him if there was a constitutional amendment for gay marriage, prostitution, abortion whatever. The key would be that it was a constitutional amendment.

I love Thomas. But, Robert could be my favorite now.

-Gryph

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
I had a long drive this morning and was thinking about the Harriet Miers nomination (on my way to Middle-of-freaking-nowhere, IL.) Could the nomination be a smart political move, with no real down-side for Bush?

Scenario 1: Meirs gets confirmed. Bush wins. He gets a nominee who he can trust, who is a friend, and who holds similar beliefs (presumably) as the President.

Scenario 2: Meirs gets a No vote, now Bush appoints the most conservative person he can finds and re-starts the media campaign about how the liberals aren't letting him exercise his constitutional powers. How they are unfair, etc., etc. Bush wins as he would probably be able to pass through a more conservative nominee because Miers was rejected and the liberals wouldn't be able to politically reject two consecutive supreme court nominees.

I haven't thought it through, but it made sense at 5:30 this morning in the middle of corn-country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scenerio 3: Bush has just given Roberts 2 votes on the Supreme Court. Miers is a reasonably blank slate when it comes to constitutional law with conservative leanings. She seems to be resourceful in aligning with powerful driven leaders. She gets her constitutional education from Roberts and plays ball. She seems very adaptive to people. Bush really likes Roberts and now he has given him 2 votes.

-Gryph