What do you think of Harriet Miers
 

What do you think of President Bush's appointee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers? Is she the person who President Bush should have picked? Did he pick her on merit or because of cronyism and loyalty? Will she be a good justice? Will she be confirmed? What is your opinion of her and her appointment?

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ge.../04/159414.html

I want the best possible person to be on the bench--to apply the constitution, not to legislate.

She may be good, but I don't know that. As someone who voted for Bush, I want a brilliant legal mind with a proven track record.

[QUOTE=cordycord,Oct 4 2005, 10:49 PM] http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ge.../04/159414.html

I want the best possible person to be on the bench--to apply the constitution, not to legislate.

She may be good, but I don't know that.

This century there have been many Supreme Court members with no experience as a judge. If a governor or senator can be a justice I guess a president's lawyer could handle it. I still have no idea if she belongs there but wouldn't eliminate her on lack of experience.

You mean the former Texas State Lottery Commissioner who has no experience on the bench? Oh what the Hell, I guess she can't do much worse for SCOTUS than Brown did for FEMA. At least James Dobson seems to like her, and we all know what a well reasoned character he is. :rolleyes:

It's going to be a l-o-n-g three years. :banghead:

I know nothing about her. That is pretty bad.

You forgot my personal favorite, "activist judge". Those judges who don't view the wall separating church and state as more of a curtain.

[QUOTE=ralper,Oct 4 2005, 08:51 PM] What do you think of President Bush's appointee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers?

If she was a judge before the nomination we would have a good track record of how she performs, but she is not.

She is a lawyer and as such should represent whoever hired her. If she didn't she would be far from a good lawyer. If she meddled in cases she personally didn't support, she would not be interested in giving fair representation to her clients but rather some other standard based on her personal belief. So no matter how she feels about it she would have to do a good job (form the prospective of what a lawyer is).

So...lets say she worked against a consumer class action suit for a major corporation (IMHO: DOS users against Microsoft). This case went to trial and her side won. That means she is a good lawyer even if she worked against the public interest (the duty of a judge is to work in the public interest). You can't hold that against her because she is doing what she is supposed to do.

So...it is hard to use her history as a lawyer as anything other then saying that: yes, she can read a law book and understand it. You can not look at her cases as how she will jude nor can you look at her cases to see how she might view the law. As a lawyer, she is going to view them in such a way that she will allow her to win the case. There is no wining side as the judge...you are the referee.

The ONLY thing we can do is look at what areas she has worked in as a lawyer to see what areas of the legal system she is familirar with.

personally: I think she has good qualifications to work as a federal level judge , I just don't know about the Supreme Court. She has never argued a case before the supreme court so it does not look like the has any qualifications at that level (at least as far as her legal career is concerned).

I am also concerned that her practice admitted that it defrauded the investors of their clients (Toshiba, General Motors, Morgan Stanley, PetsMart) for something like $22 million (http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/000501.MBX). That dosn't not speak well for her view of law or her view of the public interest (the investors in this case) as these are publicly traded companies. I will admit given the size of those companies 22million is far from a conspiracy.

However, I do like her because she seems moderate. She gave money to the democratic party and even donated money to Al Gore. (http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_p...riet_Miers.php) So...it is interesting, she used to be a democrat but converted. She seems to think for herself rather then some party line.

There are far worse out there and I think she could do a good job, I just say it with some reservation.

:iagree:

I'm glad that he picked a woman and one that is 60. Except for being :buddies: with W, I would be even more hopeful. As usual, Geo has executed a clever maneuver.

That's what we want from our politicians: cleverness :whome: E.g., pull the wool over their eyes and they won't know what hit 'em

Mike Garrison

[QUOTE]

Don't know much about her, and not concerned that she has never been a judge. What worries me is that I heard she stated that George Bush is the smartest person she ever met. Now that's scary! :eek3:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:iagree:


That bothered me too.

Hmmm

I don't know anything about her either. Other than what I have heard.

1. She never swears not even hell or damn.

2. She's a born again christian from the roman catholic church.

3. She thinks being gay is ok as long as you don't touch.

4. She's a permanent bachlorette, and never laughs. She rarely smiles.

I haven't seen anything to convince me what her judicial philosophy would be.

I still think Bush is trying to matchmake with Souter.

If I were voting today it would be no, but then I don't get to vote and it won't be today.

fltsfshr

Dude, that whole sentence parses out to nothing but "buzzword bingo". Besides, the Constitution is like a Rorschach ink blot. It's amazing what different people see in it. For instance, some can only see the First Amendment but not the Second, while others are exactly the opposite.

In any event, the entire government is built from the Constitution. This is by design. It was not intended to be the law of the land, it was intended to be the process by which the law of the land is written, interpreted, and executed.

[QUOTE]

She must not get out much. :D

BTW, for an example of my bemusement wrt the SC, consider the Oregon case. By any rational meaning of "strict constructionist" or most of the other buzzwords the Republicans toss around, this seems to be pretty obvious. Rights that are not explicitly granted to the Federal Government are reserved for the states and the people. So a strict reading of the Constitution should say that the state has the right to pass an assisted suicide law (especially since it was approved twice by a popular vote of the people).

But no, it is the current administration (the same one claiming to be "strict constructionist") which is pushing to have Federal laws overrule the state law. This will be an early test of what a Roberts Court will really be like, as opposed to the coded buzzword phrases about "judicial activism" and "strict constructionism".

It sure seems to me like overturning the Oregon law is "judicial activism", creating a brand new mandate for the Federal government to regulate medical practice.

This is the sort of thing which is my basis for concluding that these are just codewords, meaning "our way or the highway," not actually real judicial principles. Or at least, if they ever were real judicial principles, the phrases have been co-opted, just like the words "liberal" and "conservative" have been.

:hello:

Throwing in my .02

I think that it will remain to be seen how history records her tenure (assuming that she is approved).


My first reaction was that it is a pretty good gig if one can get the appointment paying $199,200 a year for a job that one can NEVER be fired from. But then after learning some of her creditials, she has likely made more than that as a Corporate lawyer.

As G.W.Bush pointed out Chief Justice Reinquist, who was HIGHLY regarded, did not have any previous experience as a Judge either? So, in my mind only time will tell.

I do find it interesting that one can be appointed as "The Chief Justice" of The Supreme Court without "working your way up to that position." BTW, there is an $8,000 pay difference for the Chief Justice and the others.

What I don't like most of all is that this appointment reeks of cronyism. More rewards to loyal friends. I don't think thats the credentials a Supreme Court Justice should be appointed on.

:iagree: But that is why I have such distane for Politicians. The previous Adminiistration had there share of appointments as well. :brokehrt: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:

Anyone is going to naturally trust his friends more than strangers, and also to reward them if he has the opportunity to do so. The unnerving thing about Bush the younger is his seeming tendency to make friendship and personal loyalty the ONLY factor that is important in his appointments, rather than just one factor out of many.

:iagree:

In past administrations the appointees were generally qualified for the position. In this administration qualifications seem to have very little to do with the appointment.

It is possible that Harriet Meirs is qualified yet knowing what we know about most of Bush's appointments, this one reeks of cronyism.

So are you suggesting that like the last Chief Justice that had NO prior experience as a Judge that her nomination is any different?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm not even saying that Harriet Miers is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. She may or may not be. Unfortunately nobody knows that much about her. All I'm saying is that based on the way that Bush has made his appointments in the past, this whole thing smells bad.

To tell the truth, I was never super-impressed with Reinquist....

I wasn't either, but that's besides the point.

:shout: Lake George attendees:

It will soon be time to bury the political hatchets for the weekend :hello:

Ginsberg said he was the best boss she ever had. What's your beef(s)?

Wish that she had some time as a sitting judge. At least than you would have some history. The thing is, you know nothing until they begin to chime in on rulings. Over time they may begin to come into their own. It's all a big crap shoot. You hope for the best, sit back and see what happens. These people will have more of an impact on our futures than just about anyone else.

Or "The 'top' one percent of the US population - the capitalist-class pays more than 34% of taxes."

But to understand the Marxian position that the working class produces all economic wealth is to also understand that, whether the capitalist-class collectively pays 1% of all taxes, or whether it pays 99% of all taxes it simply does not matter due the fact that all social wealth held by the capitalist class has been stolen from the working class by way of the legalized form of thievery known as "surplus value."

BITSA

Do you really believe that drivel, or do you pine for the days of Stalin? :D

To actually study that which most have been conditioned to believe they "understand" (Marxian social science) is to understand that revolutionary socialism has yet to exist in any form, at anytime anywhere on earth, including the state capitalism or bureaucratic state despotism that was the Soviet Union.
And no of course I do not believe that "drivel," cordycord. For Bill Gates, as but one example, personally manufactures every piece of software that Microsoft produces. He personally packages and ships every piece of software that Microsoft produces. He personally answers each and every phone call fielded at all Microsoft offices. Etc., etc., etc. Yeah, cordycord, never has Bill Gates exploited a single penny's worth of another human being's labor power and or intellectual power, let alone some $55 billion worth.


Peace with social justice,
Guy

I rarely ever visit the Vintage Forum, but this thread sparked my interest. I may get flamed for saying this, but here it goes:

Regardless of her political inclination and experience (or lack thereof), something that I find pretty intesteresting is that the woman is in her 60's and she's never been married and never had any kids. Now, this may not be relevant on the majority of issues that the Supreme Court comes accross, but when it comes to social issues and family issues, what does a person who has never had her own family use as her values, and her heuristics in order to help understand the relevance of certain issues she may not be familiar with when interpreting the Constitution of the United States. I certainly hope it's not the Bible (For the record, I'm not an atheist. I may not be much of a practicing catholic, but I am religious, and believe. I jsut don't take the Bible verbatum). Am I way off base here? Thoughts?

So that's why I don't have any values! Thanks for explaining it to me.

BITSA

Ah yes, the Marxist "connaisseur". Only BITSA could state so eloquently that Bill Gates is an undeserving slacker.

RODAN,

Have to agree with Mike on this one. Do similar thoughts sprout up when you think of Condi Rice?

Which would be the most frightening explanation for her comment?

1) She's willing to tell one hell of a whopper to get in good with the boss.
2) She equates "I like his politics" with "He's smart".
3) She must hang out in bars where Avg. IQ = (no. of teeth + no. of tattoos) / 2.
4) GB is a stealth genius. :eek1:

Could he be the absent minded professor of 21st century politics?

Fidel,

Welcome to the Vintage Forum!

:smoking:

http://www.canf.org/images/gobernant...stro-ron-1.jpg

:LOL: