Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court - Page 3

JackWhite · #21 10-03-2005, 01:41 PM

[ 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.

Dotson · #22 10-03-2005, 01:46 PM

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.

DVaut1 · #23 10-03-2005, 02:10 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Zing!

At least SMU will always have football.

whiskeytown · #24 10-04-2005, 12:41 AM

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"

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

benfranklin · #25 10-04-2005, 01:42 AM

[ 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.

TransientR · #26 10-04-2005, 02:28 AM

"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

PoBoy321 · #27 10-04-2005, 02:36 AM

[ 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.

sam h · #28 10-04-2005, 02:47 AM

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.

whiskeytown · #29 10-04-2005, 02:48 AM

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

RB

sam h · #30 10-04-2005, 02:59 AM

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."