What do you think of Harriet Miers
10-04-2005, 08:51 PM
#1
Thread Starter
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?
10-04-2005, 09:49 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
10-04-2005, 10:12 PM
#3
Registered User
[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.
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.
10-05-2005, 04:04 AM
#4
Registered User
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.
10-05-2005, 04:16 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ralper,Oct 5 2005, 12:51 AM
What do you think of President Bush's appointee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers?
It's going to be a l-o-n-g three years.
10-05-2005, 04:32 AM
#6
I know nothing about her. That is pretty bad.
10-05-2005, 04:35 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) ignore anything that uses the phrase "to apply the constitution, not to legislate" or any variant of that -- meaningless buzzwords that are code for "will vote my way"
Trending Topics
10-05-2005, 07:28 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
10-05-2005, 08:20 AM
#10
Originally Posted by adickerson0,Oct 5 2005, 10:28 AM
....There are far worse out there and I think she could do a good job, I just say it with some reservation.
I'm glad that he picked a woman and one that is 60. Except for being
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
E.g., pull the wool over their eyes and they won't know what hit 'em