Libs, Dems: What should we do about Miers?

[zipo]

>>but it's hard to tell what Democrats should be doing right now. <<

Nothing.

The Supreme Court was the one institution in government I had nearly unqualified respect for until the 2000 election.

I once regarded that court as being generally above politics (notwithstanding idealogues on the bench like Scalia - being above ideology would be too much to ask).

Then, that 5-4 decision by that body *to force state authorities to cease **counting** votes* legally cast by the electorate in our democracy completely shattered the illusion of that court as an 'ivory tower' dedicated to upholding law and principal, and revealed itself as just another gang of partisan political hacks.

So select Miers, this twice-born-again, sadly underqualified crony and syncophant.

In a way, this selection is a slap in the face to the institution of the Supreme court - a backhanded gesture of contempt - contempt that is richly deserved.

[El Barto]

I have to agree with the Democrats on this board. You should do nothing. If you kill her nomination, she will be replaced with a better and younger conservative. Be happy with the 50% chance that Bush is wrong and she turns out to be a moderate, but don't complain if she turns out to be a Scalia-conservative.

Bush likes to Gamble. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
The Supreme Court was the one institution in government I had nearly unqualified respect for until the 2000 election.

I once regarded that court as being generally above politics (notwithstanding idealogues on the bench like Scalia - being above ideology would be too much to ask).

[/ QUOTE ]

It is funny how when all the outrageous things the court did were to the benefit of liberals, you were so happy with them and assumed that they deserved unqualified respect.

It is also funny how no one ever mentions how inappropriate it was for the Florida Supreme Court to just throw out Florida law to achieve a political goal. I think the US Supreme was not acting politically, but was acting in outrage to the political ruling of the Florida Supreme Court. The US court took the idea of a fair judiciary seriously, and would not tolerate a politically motivated Florida Supreme Court ruling to stand.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the US Supreme was not acting politically, but was acting in outrage to the political ruling of the Florida Supreme Court. The US court took the idea of a fair judiciary seriously, and would not tolerate a politically motivated Florida Supreme Court ruling to stand.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Are you sure Clinton didn't have anything to do with the Florida court? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure Clinton didn't have anything to do with the Florida court?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well he did campaign for Lawton Chiles, the guy who appointed most of the justices on the Florida court at the time, but I feel we should give Clinton a pass on this one.

The judges should have to face their failure to uphold the Florida constitution and Florida laws on their own. Of course only 4 of the 7 judges put politics over the law anyway.

[zipo]

It's sickening to watch how many people have attempted to rationalize, excuse, and use revisionism and distorted reasoning to support the Supreme Court's flagrant and appalling hijacking of American democracy in the 2004 election.

That's really the core problem - so many people today are willing to sacrifice principle and core decency in order to obtain narrow, partisan political advantage.

It's sad to see how these Republican partisans hide behind the cloak of patriotism and "American values", and yet are undermining the foundations of our democracy like termites attacking a precious, fragile historical monument.

[zipo]

>>the Supreme Court's flagrant and appalling hijacking of American democracy in the 2004 election<<

Typo - I was referring of course to the 2000 presidential election.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
It's sickening to watch how many people have attempted to rationalize, excuse, and use revisionism and distorted reasoning to support the Florida Supreme Court's flagrant and appalling hijacking of American democracy in the 2000 election.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[zipo]

>>It's sickening to watch how many people have attempted to rationalize, excuse, and use revisionism and distorted reasoning to support the Florida Supreme Court's flagrant and appalling hijacking of American democracy in the 2000 election. <<

Yes. It's disgraceful that the Florida Supreme Court had the audacity to rule that ballots cast should actually be counted.

How dare the Florida Supreme Court interfere with a rigged election by insisting on actually counting ballots. Outrageous.

[Bill Murphy]

Haven't read any responses yet.

Dems should stand back for now. Once the hearings start(not a given HM makes it that far BTW), all the Dems' ?'s should be designed to (gently)expose her utter lack of Constiutional knowledge.

And then, every Dem should vote against her. She's not qualified, it's pure cronyism, and if there's one thing she will do if confirmed, it will be to vote against abortion rights at every opportunity. God only knows how she'll vote on any other issue.(NOTE: I'm not necessarily pro or anti Roe, I'm just advising Dems here)

When you start playing these "least bad/most confirmable/identity politics" type games you wind up w/things like Gore's 2000 campaign & Kerry's entire candidacy, including the very thought of him as the candidate to begin with.

Or, if you're a Repub, that's how you wind up w/Kennedy & Souter on the SCOTUS, instead of some duo from Bork/DGinsburg/Silberman/Posner/Jones/Garza.