Mickey Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 That's why I suggested above it was the "best" kind of cronyism. There's no particular reason to believe he's not picking from a pool of possibilities that he finds qualified, and not choosing the one nominee he knows best and trusts the most. There's also no particular reason to believe he's not challenged by the crossword puzzle on the back of his Cocoa Puffs box, too. Just because he's sincerely presenting who he thinks is the best choice for the position, doesn't make it so. Technically, that, and not for the opportunites for face-time and partisan soundbytes for the senators, is why we have the Senate approval process. Any way you slice it, though, it's an oddball choice. Offering up a judicial nominee with no judicial experience after you've been flayed in the press for having appointed a FEMA director with no emergency management experience? 463198[/snapback] No doubt, the timing of this kind of choice is pretty weird. Maybe the thought is that of all the people George finds acceptable nominees, this is the one most likely to garner some democratic support despite so that any cronyism charges will be muted. If so that would fit the idea that at this point, he is too vulnerable to force a fight with republican moderates and democrats. Maybe he figured he didn't have the political capital to go with a controversial nominee beloved by the far right. It certainly is a head scratcher.
Taro T Posted October 3, 2005 Author Posted October 3, 2005 That's why I suggested above it was the "best" kind of cronyism. There's no particular reason to believe he's not picking from a pool of possibilities that he finds qualified, and not choosing the one nominee he knows best and trusts the most. There's also no particular reason to believe he's not challenged by the crossword puzzle on the back of his Cocoa Puffs box, too. Just because he's sincerely presenting who he thinks is the best choice for the position, doesn't make it so. Technically, that, and not for the opportunites for face-time and partisan soundbytes for the senators, is why we have the Senate approval process. Any way you slice it, though, it's an oddball choice. Offering up a judicial nominee with no judicial experience after you've been flayed in the press for having appointed a FEMA director with no emergency management experience? 463198[/snapback] Actually, what I think it is the guy showing he's a pretty good politician, democratic opinion that he's the stupidest thing this side of Jessica Simpson aside. If Miers gets confirmed, then he has someone HE knows extremely well and feels comfortable with on the Supreme Court. I have to assume that he feels very comfortable with how he expects her to rule on issues that he considers important. If she gets shot down, due most likely to her never having been a judge, then he gets to nominate someone else - quite possibly Rogers Brown who by all accounts I have read (and no I have not seen details of her decisions) is very STAUNCHLY conservative who the Democrats will now have an even harder time defeating IMHO. I think the Democrats would be extremely reluctant to filibuster or vote down 2 nominees within one year of an election for fear of being viewed as strictly obstructionist. So do the Democrats give him a pass on a nominee that they have very little paper trail to follow, hoping she turns into another Souter; or do they fight tooth and nail with the very strong possibility that someone who is known to be more conservative is waiting in the wings? Either way, I think Bush "wins" this "fight". Dave.
slothrop Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Does he and the republicans have enough political capital left to push a controversial pick through? I think that is an interesting question and will be "fun" to watch. As I stated above, I think she is wholly unqualified to fill, IMHO, one of the 9 most important positions in our government. And there is no "lets just see how she works out and we can change our minds later."
KD in CA Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Does he and the republicans have enough political capital left to push a controversial pick through? I think that is an interesting question and will be "fun" to watch. As I stated above, I think she is wholly unqualified to fill, IMHO, one of the 9 most important positions in our government. And there is no "lets just see how she works out and we can change our minds later." 463301[/snapback] Just out of curiosity, which conservatives do you feel would be qualified for the USSC?
slothrop Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Just out of curiosity, which conservatives do you feel would be qualified for the USSC? 463358[/snapback] If you read my posts concerning Roberts I thought he was extremely qualified! This woman is not even in the same universe as "qualified." It has nothing to do with her political views. She is void of anything that makes her qualified other than graduating from an average law school and passing the Bar.
Alaska Darin Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 This country came into existence under the leadership of the American aristocracy, which for the most part, was a bunch of really rich guys who came from generational- not self-made- wealth. 463246[/snapback] Yeah, I remember all those aristocrats picking up their muskets and taking on the Red Coats...
Bob Lablaw Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Yeah, I remember all those aristocrats picking up their muskets and taking on the Red Coats... 463373[/snapback] I didn't say they weren't admirable; they are. But they were made of a common thread- with similar backgrounds. And that's what we were discussing. On your digressive line, I couldn't find a ready source summarizing the founding fathers' military experiences, but some of them never fought, including the biggies like Madison, Jefferson, and Adams.
blzrul Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 The headline from the Dallas Morning News' web site ought to be reason enough to think twice: "Legal Community Overjoyed" Excluding Mickey and my sister from the mix, when that pack of...well, you know...is overjoyed it doesn't bode well for the rest of us.
Mickey Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 I didn't say they weren't admirable; they are. But they were made of a common thread- with similar backgrounds. And that's what we were discussing. On your digressive line, I couldn't find a ready source summarizing the founding fathers' military experiences, but some of them never fought, including the biggies like Madison, Jefferson, and Adams. 463467[/snapback] Each one of them would have been hanged if the war had been lost. The Yankees among them were mostly the noveau riche of their day. Hancock was about the richest guy in Boston and he was mainly a smuggler. The Virginians were not technically aristocrats but they often acted that way. John Adams was a lawyer who simply worked his tail off. Sam was a failure at just about everything, especially as a tax collector.
Alaska Darin Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 I didn't say they weren't admirable; they are. But they were made of a common thread- with similar backgrounds. And that's what we were discussing. On your digressive line, I couldn't find a ready source summarizing the founding fathers' military experiences, but some of them never fought, including the biggies like Madison, Jefferson, and Adams. 463467[/snapback] You're missing my point. I also wasn't solely pointing at the Founding Fathers with my initial statement. There were a variety of people (from every class and walk of life) who contributed to the Founding of this nation, not just the folks who signed the Declaration of Independence or forged the Constitution. Hence I don't have a problem with them selecting someone who hasn't been a judge. I'd love to serve on the Supreme Court, even though I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, lawyer, etc. I don't think I'd do any worse than some of the 'tards that served before me.
Wacka Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 I meant that he had on experience as a judge in the federal courts.
Bob Lablaw Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 You're missing my point. I also wasn't solely pointing at the Founding Fathers with my initial statement. There were a variety of people (from every class and walk of life) who contributed to the Founding of this nation, not just the folks who signed the Declaration of Independence or forged the Constitution. Hence I don't have a problem with them selecting someone who hasn't been a judge. I'd love to serve on the Supreme Court, even though I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, lawyer, etc. I don't think I'd do any worse than some of the 'tards that served before me. 463537[/snapback] Well, there we differ. Although I understand and sympathize with the rock the boat mentality, it seems foolish to not promote the best legal minds (of which John Roberts is undisputably one) to the highest legal position in the country. I've seen, as you may have, that elected judges can be frigging nightmares for want of judicial acumen. I don't want to see that type of problem at the top of the country: the highest court in the land deserves the best legal minds. The highest national defense posts deserves the best military strategists and leaders. And on and on.
Mickey Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Well, there we differ. Although I understand and sympathize with the rock the boat mentality, it seems foolish to not promote the best legal minds (of which John Roberts is undisputably one) to the highest legal position in the country. I've seen, as you may have, that elected judges can be frigging nightmares for want of judicial acumen. I don't want to see that type of problem at the top of the country: the highest court in the land deserves the best legal minds. The highest national defense posts deserves the best military strategists and leaders. And on and on. 463669[/snapback] Choosing the best sounds great but the law isn't like the 100 meter dash where only one person is the fastest. You have hundreds that are pretty much on the same level of having a great legal mind. I have no idea if this woman is among the hundreds or not but I'm sure you know what I mean. For good or ill, the Constitution makes it a political appointment first and foremost.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 You're missing my point. I also wasn't solely pointing at the Founding Fathers with my initial statement. There were a variety of people (from every class and walk of life) who contributed to the Founding of this nation, not just the folks who signed the Declaration of Independence or forged the Constitution. Hence I don't have a problem with them selecting someone who hasn't been a judge. I'd love to serve on the Supreme Court, even though I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, lawyer, etc. I don't think I'd do any worse than some of the 'tards that served before me. 463537[/snapback] Now that would be a lively confirmation hearing!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 As I stated above, I think she is wholly unqualified to fill, IMHO, one of the 9 most important positions in our government. And there is no "lets just see how she works out and we can change our minds later." 463301[/snapback] I don't know that I'm completely in agreement with that statement (that she's wholly unqualified). I think it's more accurate to say that she's wholly inexperienced, enough so that it's impossible to get a comfortable impression of her qualifications - though I'd argue that her experience in constitutional issues isn't as weak as it is perceived, involved as she was in the legal issues surrounding the 2000 Presidential Election. The second-biggest strike against her, in my opinion, is her experience in front of the bench as a litigator and commensurate lack behind it; I'd like to know that a Supreme Court nominee has some experience non-partisanly representing the law rather than partisanly representing the client. The biggest strike against her, again in my opinion, is that she one called Bush "the most brilliant man I have ever met." Do we really want someone with that sort of judgement sitting on the Supreme Court?
Terry Tate Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Now that would be a lively confirmation hearing! 463701[/snapback] The Bork experience would pale in comparison.
Alaska Darin Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 The Bork experience would pale in comparison. 463779[/snapback] Finally there'd be something on television that I'd watch.
Bob Lablaw Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Choosing the best sounds great but the law isn't like the 100 meter dash where only one person is the fastest. You have hundreds that are pretty much on the same level of having a great legal mind. I have no idea if this woman is among the hundreds or not but I'm sure you know what I mean. For good or ill, the Constitution makes it a political appointment first and foremost. 463690[/snapback] With respect to the "hundreds" at the same level, she lacks important qualifications that I would expect from those hundreds. She's had no experience at the federal level. Not as a litigator. Not as a judge. Not as a clerk. Those are gaping holes for someone pegged to sit in the highest federal court. John Roberts had little experience as a judge, but few could doubt his knowledge of Constitutional law, and his experience litigating same.
EC-Bills Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 ... The biggest strike against her, again in my opinion, is that she one called Bush "the most brilliant man I have ever met." Do we really want someone with that sort of judgement sitting on the Supreme Court? 463749[/snapback]
JimBob2232 Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 If you read my posts concerning Roberts I thought he was extremely qualified! This woman is not even in the same universe as "qualified." It has nothing to do with her political views. She is void of anything that makes her qualified other than graduating from an average law school and passing the Bar. I am sure you know that she is not qualified because you have investigated her background, know what she has done her whole life, know her political views and her views for the SCOTUS. I am sure you did all this research many days and weeks before today, as if you yourself were making the nomination. You might have even talked with her and found out her personal views and qualifications. Or maybe you didnt. Maybe you just listened to some nutcase on TV tell you about her and you ate it up, like a fat kid with a german chocolate cake. Do some research on her. Listen to what she has to say. The president obviously nominated her for a reason. Yes, I too have my doubts based on what i have heard...but I will reserve judgement until I have a better understanding of who she is. Let the contitutional process begin (again)
Recommended Posts