Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers apparently pre-approved by Democrats

Maybe he really knows her well enough to know that she really is conservative.
Click to expand...
Then he'd be lying when he claims she reflects his views. GW is decidedly NOT a "Conservative" when it comes to Federalism, the Rights of the People or the States. He's a Neocon, much as I hate that word.
Rich
 
"The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts," she wrote in Texas Lawyer, when she was president of the state bar. "Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble ... access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance.

"We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs."
Click to expand...

Harriet Miers.


Sounds good too me - but is there more to it?
 
I think Bush missed the boat on this one. My impression is he wanted to avoid a messy fight because he has other things he needs/wants to concentrate on. This is a mistake. A large part of the last election was precisely about upcoming Supreme Court nominations. Picking someone who could get easy confirmation is a betrayal of the party base. Bush had the opportunity (two actually) to appoint someone, as he said, in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. He has flubbed it both times. He has backed down from the Dems and they didnt even openly threaten a fillibuster. His agenda is pretty well shot for the rest of his term as the Dems smell weakness.
 
I voted for Bush and was initially convinced he would spearhead the conservative position. Man, could I have been more wrong? He has spent money like a liberal democrat and appointed people to the bench that might be closet liberals. The liberals can't stand him, but don't ask me why, he has capitulated to their position, particularly on his big government stance, and in one swoop alienated his base of social and fiscal conservatives. His presidency has had some high points, but I consider the Miers nomination to be as low as NO. At least I can respect the man's integrity, something that horrified me with Clinton. :rolleyes:
 
Seems like Bush has finally lived up to his campaign pledge to be a uniter...

The conservatives and liberals now hate him due to his Miers appointment... :D
 
What makes me nervous is the comparative lack of outrage from the Democrats. What do they know that I don't? I'm with Publius42, I'm really concerned that she will end up being another Souter.
 
The Democrats don't know any more than the rest of us. They also need to find a few facts before they can go after her. I'm sure that this Christian stuff was leaked by the Bush camp to prop up her support from religious conservatives. You can bet that those on the ACLU left won't be sitting on their collective hands. "Christians" in government present a defacto affront to the invented concept of no religion in the federal government.
 
We need more lefts then rights for our rights,

Rights, the right does not give you more rights the left does. Only problem I see is the rights of gun owners are the only ones that seem to count. We have plenty of guns, we need to keep our Natural rights.

We are getting way to right I believe. Next you will have New Salem all over again. McCarthyism and all that stuff. Bad news.

We need middle of the road people to keep the extremes from causing some major backlash from the citizen. That is the reason they want to take away your Constitutional rights.

We need to stay the way it was written, to take away rights is wrong.
When you add right's it is ok, but when you take them away it is wrong...
Lucky we had a president. Like Honest Abe in the white house when we did.

We have come a long way but we have been in the trench's doing it.

Women have only had the same rights as man for less then 100 years.
They still want them, not to loose them. Wake up and smell the rose's.

The fight has just begun. We are a young country and we will not become an old one if you take away rights.
Look what happened in India and the Phillipines Colonialism is over. More rights for the citizen. Less Dogma.

Harley
 
Harley-
I agree with where you're headed, but not with your desired vehicle. We don't need someone "in the middle"; we need strict Constructionists on the bench; true Federalists. Then let the chips fall where they might for ALL the Bill of Rights.

The problem is the way the word "conservative" has been redefined over recent years. Reagan was a Conservative; GW is anything but, though he's donned the garb. A "Conservative" in the image of George Bush is no more a strict Constructionist than a "Moderate". And he's already proudly announced that Miers is a "Conservative" cut from his coat tails. In fact, this is her single claim to fame.

Sickening, when you think about it.
Rich
 
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT

:D

That's the way I feel about it. Everyone else is just cannon fodder for the conservatives and the liberals IMNSHO.

Wayne
 
For a GREAT read on the migration of SCOTUS Justices' philosophies and the possible causes check this out

IMHO, it explains Souter perfectly:
The argument is that he had so little "real-life" experience prior to his confirmation that he only developed his jurisprudential views after donning the black robe. Souter himself has said that when he was confirmed he knew next to nothing about important federal constitutional issues—having had experience as a state attorney general and then as a state supreme court justice.
Click to expand...
Sound like someone else?

It also explains why I have high hopes for Roberts:
Rank speculation suggests that he may drift somewhat, but not a whole lot. Roberts' intellectual confidence points to a man unlikely to be swayed by the siren song of the opinion pages, and his ability to get along with everyone suggests that he may not only withstand Scalia's barbs but could assume the role of leader of the conservative wing—attracting moderates like Kennedy and Breyer back to the fold. Roberts' extensive experience in the executive branch and his role as successful advocate for conservative positions means he likely has a well-thought-out judicial philosophy on hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage, and that, unlike Souter or O'Connor, he won't be crafting his views as he goes.
Click to expand...
Rich
 
Rich,

I do hope that you're right. I'm still a little gun shy (pun intended) with him (Roberts).

I watched some of the confirmation hearings and also listened to them on the radio and even through I will admit that he is very brilliant and is quick thinking, he now holds what some could say was the highest office of the land (even over the President). And he's relatively young, which means that he could be on the bench for many decades to come.

As for Miers, I completely agree with you on this thread as well as the other. I'm just saying that maybe we're looking up at the wrong people to have on the SCOTUS based on just a few attributes.

Wayne
 
Bush had the opportunity (two actually) to appoint someone, as he said, in the mold of Scalia or Thomas.
Click to expand...
Those are two very different molds. Scalia is no Thomas.

Thomas is willing to consider the idea that previous courts may have been wrong. Scalia is not.
 
I'm not very happy about Miers, because I think there were much better choices.

But then I think, who would a president Gore or a president Kerry be nominating right now? Then I feel a whole lot better.
 
A whole lot better?

Why?

Whether we're talking about Souter or Ginsburg, we're still talking about the same vote on Raich and Kelo.
 
publius42 said:
Those are two very different molds. Scalia is no Thomas.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the general public at large, and to a great extent our senators and representatives, do not see a distinct difference. To them, they are of the same cloth.

And remember, to many, even Rehnquist was much the same. They would much prefer a "moderate" like Kennedy and O'Connor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top