Harriet Miers - Who The Hell Is She?

[TheEschaton]

This is the person Bush picked as his new nominee to the Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. I had to search far and wide to find anything (and I mean, anything) written about her before the announcement, which was, oh, an hour ago?

What I've gathered is this:

A) She's never been a judge before.

B) She's a White House Insider

C) She's known for being "loyal to Bush", and has served as his personal lawyer.

D) She's from (surprise, surprise) Texas.

E) In a Dickensian (as in Dick Cheney, not Dickens) like move, she was on the panel to look for Supreme Court nominees, and she ended up getting the nod.

I have to say, I get a bit nervous with all these shadow candidates who have no records to examine. This one is even more obscure than the Roberts pick - at least he's served as a judge, and has SOME sort of record to look at, albeit a small one.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

Almost seems like a wasted nomination to me from a Republican perspective. This is like a Michael Brown quality appointment. Her main qualification is having run the Texas Lottery. They could've had a conservative jurist that, y'know, mattered. Not a lot to slam her on, though, so I suppose that's one benefit to the party faithful, and definitely a FoB.

It's like a throwaway nomination when the Republicans have the whip hand. They control the entire government and they put her up?

Color me puzzled.

[Edited on 10-3-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Parkbandit]

Without knowing much about her.. it does seem like a strange nomination.

From MSN:

"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the administration to consider Miers, two congressional officials said. Asked to elaborate, Reid’s office told NBC News that he had “urged the White House to take a look at her — but that is it.

Bush, his approval rating falling in recent months, had been under intense pressure to nominate a woman or a minority.

“She will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench,” Bush said of Miers. Conservatives apparently agreed.

“There’s every indication that she’s very similar to Judge Roberts — judicial restraint, limited role of the court, basically a judicial conservative,” said Republican consultant Greg Mueller, who works for several conservative advocacy leaders.

The president offered the job to Miers Sunday night over dinner in the residence. He met with Miers on four occasions during the past couple weeks, officials said.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. I suppose it's the "I wish he'd nominated Posner" bit of me that's dissappointed. Democrats should be happy, I guess. This seems like one of those "let's get a woman" nominations.

[Atlanteax]

There seems to be a female Democrat on the Supreme Court committee (I forget the name, but I think the article was in CNN) that favors Miers.

[Gan]

Unfortunately we are seeing the need for more and more sterilized candidates for any position in government. This is about as sterilized as you can get.

Is this because of the public's expectations of having a candidate that is 'untainted' and can the only way to be untainted is to be from outside the political arena? (Not that she's untainted since she's coming from a cabinet position...)

[Back]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
D) She's from (surprise, surprise) Texas.

-TheE-

We may as well call this the United States of Texas at this point.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
We may as well call this the United States of Texas at this point. Don't encourage them. :no:

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Backlash
We may as well call this the United States of Texas at this point. Don't encourage them. :no:

Well, when you have the best football team...

[Latrinsorm]

The Giants moved to Texas and no one told me? :(

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by TheEschaton
D) She's from (surprise, surprise) Texas.

-TheE-

We may as well call this the United States of Texas at this point.

LMAO.. just another unfounded, conspiracy theory from our resident alarmist Backlash.

Dear Backlash, doesn't it make sense that since he was from Texas, he would bring people he trusted and had a relationship with him to the White House? I know when I go to another job and I find that an employee isn't up to my standards, I'll call up an old employee and ask them to join my new team.

Oh, and just so you know.. most of his cabinet ISN'T from Texas. :wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:

Here, get educated:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html

Of the 21 members of his Cabinet.. 3 are "from" Texas.

United States of Texas, indeed.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by TheEschaton
D) She's from (surprise, surprise) Texas.

-TheE-

We may as well call this the United States of Texas at this point.

LMAO.. just another unfounded, conspiracy theory from our resident alarmist Backlash.

Dear Backlash, doesn't it make sense that since he was from Texas, he would bring people he trusted and had a relationship with him to the White House? I know when I go to another job and I find that an employee isn't up to my standards, I'll call up an old employee and ask them to join my new team.

Oh, and just so you know.. most of his cabinet ISN'T from Texas. :wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:

Here, get educated:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html

Of the 21 members of his Cabinet.. 3 are "from" Texas.

United States of Texas, indeed.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Why are you trying to pick fights with me today? :(

I made one sarcastic comment, mostly out of humor but some out of truth. You slam me for it then turn around in the next paragraph and rationalize it.

It seems like we are saying the same thing, but if I say it its a conspiracy and if you say it its perfectly ok?

[Parkbandit]

Mostly because I thought you might have a point, but when I actually took a look at his VERY DIVERSE cabinet (Something that he doesn't get enough credit for in my opinion) it was clear that it wasn't the case.

[Back]

Sure enough. But there are many many more seats the administration has filled. One I heard of is that Bush appointed the head of Budwieser in TX to some national position. I forget the details.

Regardless, whats the feeling on this new Supreme Court appointee? Lack of judicial experience seems like one of the top reasons to oppose the idea, although I have learned that at least one-third of all Supreme Court justices had no judicial experience.

It would be interesting to ferret out their records and see how things went.

[xtc]

I don't know a thing about this women however Judge Rehnquist has no judicial experience when he was appointed to the Supreme Court and neither did a man called Earl Warren who served on the bench in the 50's and 60's.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
but when I actually took a look at his VERY DIVERSE cabinet (Something that he doesn't get enough credit for in my opinion) You're right, his cabinet is one of the most diverse I've seen of any President. However, I don't feel he should get any extra credit for arranging a diverse cabinet as long as they are qualified for the position they hold and carry it out to the best of their abilities. It would be safe to assume he's made fairly good choices and leave it at that.

[Skirmisher]

Quote from ABC news profile:


According to a blog by David Frum, a former speechwriter for Bush, Miers has been known for her loyalty and will not make headlines as an associate justice.

"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," Frum's blog said. "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."

Full profile on ABC website here. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SupremeCourt/story?id=1170572&page=1)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Parkbandit
but when I actually took a look at his VERY DIVERSE cabinet (Something that he doesn't get enough credit for in my opinion) You're right, his cabinet is one of the most diverse I've seen of any President. However, I don't feel he should get any extra credit for arranging a diverse cabinet as long as they are qualified for the position they hold and carry it out to the best of their abilities. It would be safe to assume he's made fairly good choices and leave it at that.

I think he's gone out of his way to bring in very qualified candidates for these high positions from all nationalities. By far, the most diverse cabinet in US history. He should be applauded for his efforts and inclusion.

Unfortunately, the US media would rather paint him as a stupid, minority hating idiot.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Quote from ABC news profile:


According to a blog by David Frum, a former speechwriter for Bush, Miers has been known for her loyalty and will not make headlines as an associate justice.

"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," Frum's blog said. "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."

Full profile on ABC website here. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SupremeCourt/story?id=1170572&page=1)

you forgot the rest of the quote I will post it for you.

"........ But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or--and more importantly--that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left."

FULL ARTICLE (http://frum.nationalreview.com/)

[Edited on 10-3-2005 by xtc]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by xtc

you forgot the rest of the quote I will post it for you.

"........ But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or--and more importantly--that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left."

FULL ARTICLE (http://frum.nationalreview.com/)

[Edited on 10-3-2005 by xtc]

No, I didn't forget any "rest" of a quote, i posted my source so if you want to take issue with them feel free, but please do not tell me I did something when I did not.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I think he's gone out of his way to bring in very qualified candidates for these high positions from all nationalities. Bravo? I guess the media agrees that neither he nor anyone else should receive accolades for hiring based on the qualitifications of individuals who happen to be non-white. And the fact that those qualified are of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds is an extra added bonus. How ridiculous would that look if they were to praise him simply for that? All it would serve to do is to give those that are ignorant of the workings of programs such as affirmative action and the like fuel to say they received the positions because of their skin color and not their exceptional skills. The fact that he has successfully found diversity among his choices is great and hopefully sets a precedent for future presidents.
Unfortunately, the US media would rather paint him as a stupid, minority hating idiot. I haven't seen the media paint him as a minority hater. I have seen a few missinformed individuals make that proclamation based off of the governments response to our country's worst natural disaster. The stupid and idiot parts I really can't argue against as the media does quite a thorough job of claiming him to be either or, depending on the day of the week and whatever issue has arisen.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by xtc

you forgot the rest of the quote I will post it for you.

"........ But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or--and more importantly--that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left."

FULL ARTICLE (http://frum.nationalreview.com/)

[Edited on 10-3-2005 by xtc]

No, I didn't forget any "rest" of a quote, i posted my source so if you want to take issue with them feel free, but please do not tell me I did something when I did not.

My apologies.

Frum seems to be taking issue that she isn't right wing enough which is different from what ABC chopped of his article. The error is ABC's not yours. It looks like ABC is putting it's spin on things.

[Warriorbird]

Unfortunately, the US media would rather paint him as a stupid, minority hating idiot.

Boo hoo.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by xtc

you forgot the rest of the quote I will post it for you.

"........ But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or--and more importantly--that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left."

FULL ARTICLE (http://frum.nationalreview.com/)

[Edited on 10-3-2005 by xtc]

No, I didn't forget any "rest" of a quote, i posted my source so if you want to take issue with them feel free, but please do not tell me I did something when I did not.

Way to forget/frame the quote you wanted.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by xtc
The error is ABC's not yours. It looks like ABC is putting it's spin on things.

Um, Duh! It's the LIBERAL SPIN MAN! GET WITH IT.

IF YOU WANT NO SPIN, YOU NEED TO USE FOX NEWS FOR THEIR FAIR AND BALANCED COVERAGE.

:smilegrin:

[Terminator X]

A bomb needs to go off in the supreme court and kill everyone except Ginzberg, pretty much.

- The Termite

[ElanthianSiren]

She's largely anti abortion. My stance -- to hell with her.

-M

edit: snip

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/gen/ap/TX_Miers_Abortion.html


[Edited on Tue, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
She's largely anti abortion. My stance -- to hell with her.

-M

edit: snip

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/gen/ap/TX_Miers_Abortion.html


[Edited on Tue, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

Using that logic, she is also largely Democratic.

Using that logic, she is also largely a Al Gore supporter.


AL GORE IN 08!

[Tsa`ah]

Stances aside, how qualified is she?

What's her education?
What is her experience?

I'm sorry, I don't feel at all comfortable with a post menapausal supporter of Bush who has no judiciary experience sitting in one of the highest "life time" seats in the land.

I'm wondering if this is going to be a bait and switch tactic, or just a gambit of lame "pro-Bush" candidates for the rope a dope.

I'd hope the GOP, and Dems alike, put the "no" stamp on this one ... but at this point I realize that it's asking too much.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Stances aside, how qualified is she?

What's her education?
What is her experience?

I'm sorry, I don't feel at all comfortable with a post menapausal supporter of Bush who has no judiciary experience sitting in one of the highest "life time" seats in the land.

I'm wondering if this is going to be a bait and switch tactic, or just a gambit of lame "pro-Bush" candidates for the rope a dope.

I'd hope the GOP, and Dems alike, put the "no" stamp on this one ... but at this point I realize that it's asking too much.

Isn't it premature to put a "no" stamp on her before we know anything about her.

Rehnquist had no judicial experience when he was chosen to the Supreme Court either.

I am not saying yes, I am saying it is too early to make a decision.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
Isn't it premature to put a "no" stamp on her before we know anything about her.

Rehnquist had no judicial experience when he was chosen to the Supreme Court either.

I am not saying yes, I am saying it is too early to make a decision.

Stances on issues does not a Supreme Court justice make.

It's not too early as the times are different. She has no experience and she lacks qualification.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
She's largely anti abortion. My stance -- to hell with her.

-M

edit: snip

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/gen/ap/TX_Miers_Abortion.html


[Edited on Tue, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

Using that logic, she is also largely Democratic.

Using that logic, she is also largely a Al Gore supporter.


AL GORE IN 08!

Hardly PB. If she is part of Bush's inner circle, notorious for BEING conservative, there is a large bet that she is a conservative. Due to the fact that she's from Texas, that bet gets even bigger. Due to the fact that she has tried to overhaul abortion rights on the bar, that bet grows astronomical. Now, factor in the fact that Roberts is married to a strong anti-abortion conservative, that Scallia and Thomas both have a gun for reproductive rights, and the picture grows very clear, at least in my mind.

The right to do as you will to your body is too important to me to NOT err on the side of caution.

-M

[xtc]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
She's largely anti abortion. My stance -- to hell with her.

-M

edit: snip

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/gen/ap/TX_Miers_Abortion.html


[Edited on Tue, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

Using that logic, she is also largely Democratic.

Using that logic, she is also largely a Al Gore supporter.


AL GORE IN 08!

Hardly PB. If she is part of Bush's inner circle, notorious for BEING conservative, there is a large bet that she is a conservative. Due to the fact that she's from Texas, that bet gets even bigger. Due to the fact that she has tried to overhaul abortion rights on the bar, that bet grows astronomical. Now, factor in the fact that Roberts is married to a strong anti-abortion conservative, that Scallia and Thomas both have a gun for reproductive rights, and the picture grows very clear, at least in my mind.

The right to do as you will to your body is too important to me to NOT err on the side of caution.

-M

She has supported Democrats earlier in her life. I guess she took Winston Churchill's advice.

"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head!"

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by xtc
Isn't it premature to put a "no" stamp on her before we know anything about her.

Rehnquist had no judicial experience when he was chosen to the Supreme Court either.

I am not saying yes, I am saying it is too early to make a decision.

Stances on issues does not a Supreme Court justice make.

It's not too early as the times are different. She has no experience and she lacks qualification.

I think Democrats want a raving liberal to replace O'Connor.

Two other Supreme Court Justices had no judicial experience before being appointed. Times changing has nothing to do with the ability to be an effective Supreme Court Justice.

This is from wikopedia:

SMU Bachelors in Math and law degree
Masters from Harvard Law School

first female president of the Dallas Bar Association

co-managing partner of a legal business with more than 400 lawyers

clients include Microsoft and Walt Disney

chair of the Board of Editors for the American Bar Association Journal.

Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary

Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy

White House Counsel

Named as one of "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America" and one of the "50 Most Influential Women Lawyers" in America, from the National Law Journal

1997 Woman of the Year, from Today’s Dallas Woman

Louise B. Raggio Award, from the Dallas Women Lawyers Association

Jurisprudence Award, from the Anti-Defamation League

Hon. Merrill Hartman Award, from the Legal Services of North Texas

Sarah T. Hughes Award, from the Women in the Law Section, State Bar of Texas

American Jewish Committee Human Relations Award

Justinian Award for Community Service, from the Dallas Bar Association

She has supported both Democrats and Republicans.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
clients include Microsoft and Walt DisneyNext please.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by xtc
clients include Microsoft and Walt DisneyNext please.

You don't like Mickey and Bill?

[Warriorbird]

It's been really funny hearing her lambasted on talk radio all day... none of it was Democratic talk radio either. I was very amused at Alan Handleman saying, "Does the President get it? Is he in touch with reality? This nomination COULD have meant something."

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by xtc
Isn't it premature to put a "no" stamp on her before we know anything about her.

Rehnquist had no judicial experience when he was chosen to the Supreme Court either.

I am not saying yes, I am saying it is too early to make a decision.

Stances on issues does not a Supreme Court justice make.

It's not too early as the times are different. She has no experience and she lacks qualification.

30% of all Supreme Court Justices didn't have judging experience.

I don't see anything in her record that would lead you to believe she lacks experince or qualifications.

She will easily be confirmed through as she already has strong Democratic support. Hell, a ranking Democrat put her name into the hat to begin with.

I personally think Bush settled. He could have put someone in there that could have brought back the Court the way it was originally intended.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
It's been really funny hearing her lambasted on talk radio all day... none of it was Democratic talk radio either. I was very amused at Alan Handleman saying, "Does the President get it? Is he in touch with reality? This nomination COULD have meant something."

What a closet conservative you are. I'm telling.

:lol:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
She will easily be confirmed through as she already has strong Democratic support. Hell, a ranking Democrat put her name into the hat to begin with.
I believe one of them is the Democratic Minority leader. He said he liked the fact that she was a trial lawyer, his very own speciality. Too funny.

[ElanthianSiren]

I'm not quite sure why you feel the need to label at a time when the person in question will be one of the most crucial elements of the court, but by all means, feel free. I am not comfortable with not knowing this candidate's views on (any)things and will continue to state that opinion.

Further, I can't fathom throwing support behind a candidate not knowing his or her stances on important issues, especially as a lifetime appointment. I am quite displeased with her recorded activities on abortion (including her attempt to alter an entire organization's stance on abortion). That says to me that she is a person who will try to alter the court's ruling on specific issues that she does not agree with.

That said, you never know; she may set aside her personal opinions on the bench, but at the least of my opposition, I do not trust Bush's blind appointments. Why should I?

-M

[Hulkein]

The fact that 1/3 of all justices had no judicial experience can be seen as an outdated stat.

In the past a lot of judges were picked because they were cronies with the president, not necessarily because they were the most qualified. A lot of people are saying the same thing for this case, with legitimate reason.

That being said -- people need to relax and let the interview process take place before placing their judgment about her. She could have all the right answers and blow away everyones expectations.

The fact that she has a record against abortion is a positive to me, so I hope the interviews go good.

[Edited on 10-4-2005 by Hulkein]

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Terminator X
A bomb needs to go off in the supreme court and kill everyone except Ginzberg, pretty much.

- The Termite

Kennedy may also live.

-M

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Hardly PB. If she is part of Bush's inner circle, notorious for BEING conservative, there is a large bet that she is a conservative. Due to the fact that she's from Texas, that bet gets even bigger. Due to the fact that she has tried to overhaul abortion rights on the bar, that bet grows astronomical. Now, factor in the fact that Roberts is married to a strong anti-abortion conservative, that Scallia and Thomas both have a gun for reproductive rights, and the picture grows very clear, at least in my mind.

The right to do as you will to your body is too important to me to NOT err on the side of caution.

-M

Roe vs Wade will never be overturned.

Ever.

There is precidence. The retarded Religious Right and the Chicken Little Lefts can all hold their breath until they all die a slow painful death.

One of the great things about Conservatives, in my opinion, is that they want the Court to interpret the Constitution.. not re-define it. Not make up laws based upon their own personal beliefs. That is up to the Legislature.

If Liberals believe that they have some right to put a Liberal Judge into the Supreme Court.. then they have another thing coming. Had they won the election in 2004.. THEN AND ONLY THEN would they have that right.

Good job nominating Kerry. You had the opportunity to place 2 people on the Court.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Hulkein]

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it'll be nice that a women is the deciding vote so the feminists who claim BUT ITZ TEH WOMENZ BODY MEN CANT DEBATE ABOUT ABORTIONZ can stfu.

[ElanthianSiren]

Roe V. Wade does not need to be overturned to undermine it drastically. State courts just need to keep tightening the provisions of who the ruling applies to, and the Supreme court just needs to find in favour of the State courts when their rulings are brought before it as unconstitutional.


-M

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Roe vs Wade will never be overturned.
I agree.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
You don't like Mickey and Bill? Bill is ok when he's not crushing the proletariat. Mickey is just Satan.

-Comrade E

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Roe V. Wade does not need to be overturned to undermine it drastically. State courts just need to keep tightening the provisions of who the ruling applies to, and the Supreme court just needs to find in favour of the State courts when their rulings are brought before it as unconstitutional.


-M

Well, Henny Penny said Turkey Lurky said Billy Willy said Chicken Little Said the Sky is falling!

I'm for woman's rights.. and I'm not concerned in the least about abortions all of a sudden becoming illegal in the USA. Won't happen.

Now.. I DO believe it's a parent's right to know when their 14 year old daughter is trying to get an abortion. I think it's a parents right to force the clinic to get the Parent's approval before performing any abortion.

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't necessarily feel the same, especially if that 14 year old has a guardian like a grandmother or uncle willing to be there in the parental stead.


-M

edit to add: I doubt we're talking about a large population of 14 year olds. The state law in question most likely is used on 16 and 17 year olds most, so while it's emotionally appealing to use a 14 year old as an example, I doubt that's where a large amount of the demographic is.

[Edited on Tue, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I don't necessarily feel the same, especially if that 14 year old has a guardian like a grandmother or uncle willing to be there in the parental stead.


-M

edit to add: I doubt we're talking about a large population of 14 year olds. The state law in question most likely is used on 16 and 17 year olds most, so while it's emotionally appealing to use a 14 year old as an example, I doubt that's where a large amount of the demographic is.

[Edited on Tue, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

As a parent, I want to know if my child is going out to get an abortion. Period. She's considered my child until the age of 18. Period.

Granted, my daughters won't be having any sexual relations until she is 21. My daughters won't even be LOOKING at pee pees until they are married. MY DAUGHTERS WON'T EVEN BE LOOKING AT GUYS UNTIL THEY ARE OUT ON THEIR OWN! MY DAUGHTERS>>>>>>>.................

I think I'm having an aneurism

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I don't necessarily feel the same, especially if that 14 year old has a guardian like a grandmother or uncle willing to be there in the parental stead.


-M

edit to add: I doubt we're talking about a large population of 14 year olds. The state law in question most likely is used on 16 and 17 year olds most, so while it's emotionally appealing to use a 14 year old as an example, I doubt that's where a large amount of the demographic is.

[Edited on Tue, October th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

As a parent, I want to know if my child is going out to get an abortion. Period. She's considered my child until the age of 18. Period.

Granted, my daughters won't be having any sexual relations until she is 21. My daughters won't even be LOOKING at pee pees until they are married. MY DAUGHTERS WON'T EVEN BE LOOKING AT GUYS UNTIL THEY ARE OUT ON THEIR OWN! MY DAUGHTERS>>>>>>>.................

I think I'm having an aneurism

...A completely unrealistic one at that.

-M

[ElanthianSiren]

I guess you'd be okay then if you were informed by the clinic/another guardian that she was having an abortion as she was going in for it? You just said you wanted to know. You never said anything about interfering with her right to choose what she does with her body.

-M

[Hulkein]

I think Artha's PAWS posters would work good here for this raging feminist.

[Hulkein]

This picture has been brought to you by the following quote.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/dawkins/paws1.jpg


Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
You never said anything about interfering with her right to choose what she [SHE BEING YOUR 14 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER] does with her body.

-M

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I guess you'd be okay then if you were informed by the clinic/another guardian that she was having an abortion as she was going in for it? You just said you wanted to know. You never said anything about interfering with her right to choose what she does with her body.

-M

I HOPE that we raised our children correctly in that IF they were to have sexual intercourse, that they would use a condom. It's tough to say specifically what I would do.. but I would hope that I would have the patience and calmness not to kill the boy and allow my daughter to make the decision about her unborn fetus. I think I would push for an abortion if I killed the boy.. or if he decided not to stick around.. or if she's 16 and under.

The thought of my daughters engaging in that type of behavior makes me ill. Let's talk about something else dammit.

[DeV]

For every raging feminist there are at least 5 raging male chauvinist pigs, maybe more and at least 1 raging female chauvinist pig.

I think you're safe, for now.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Let's talk about something else dammit. More ammunition. muahahaha

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Let's talk about something else dammit. More ammunition. muahahaha

I h8 u.

Alot.

[DeV]

I'd never use anything like that to make or break a point. It's a way too sensitive and personal family matter.

I hope you know I'm kidding, in all seriousness. :saint:

But don't let the halo fool you.

[Edited on 10-4-2005 by DeV]

[Warriorbird]

What a closet conservative you are. I'm telling.

I'm really a libertarian. Sadly we don't have a party.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

What a closet conservative you are. I'm telling.

I'm really a libertarian. Sadly we don't have a party.

Us Republicans like it that way, it helps split the Democratic ticket when you guys get really fired up. :whistle:

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

The thought of my daughters engaging in that type of behavior makes me ill. Let's talk about something else dammit.


See ostrich poster. Apply LIBERALLY. :lol:

I'm just razzing you PB.

The state lines/guardian laws only serve to discriminate against teenagers (again, likely in the 16/17 age range) who do not have positive relationships within their immediate family. It makes one wonder as well if the positive relationships are not there to even discuss the problem, and if the girl wants an abortion, why certain states have basically mandated that she have that child. It also errodes the long-standing principle of en loco parentus within nuclear relationships, which conservatives seem to favour at their convenience, but that's another issue entirely.

I don't think it's the role of the supreme court to repeal its previous decision through errosion of who is entitled to the right granted by it. That is my only real issue thus far with Miers as a judge, as she has been quite activist on the texas bar on abortion rights.

I think Bush has mischaracterized her as constructionist, unless that term means someone who will legislate conservative values from the bench. Again, this is my impression, based on her previous actions. I'm sure we'll get a clearer look, based on her interview answers, which I expect to be scrutinized more heavily than Roberts', for the simple fact that we know even less about her.


-M

[CrystalTears]

Discriminate against teenagers? Oh please. Until the age of 18, they are children and are the responsibility of the guardian and if my child decided at the age of 17 that she was having an abortion, I want to know about it and have a say in it.

I'm not against abortion but I think it's a little too liberal for my taste. Some checks and balances need to be set in place, and that's what I'm hoping to see. Abortion can never be overturned but the procedures should be looked over.

As for Miers, I just think Bush found someone safe rather than someone significant to take that role. I would have rather he chosen Alberto Gonzalez but him not being female wiped that idea. Too bad.


[Edited on 10/5/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

So... children who have sex with their parents (forced or unforced) should have to have their parents approval for an abortion?

That was the extent of that law when it was proposed in Virginia. Yeah, I'm going to call that problematic.

I think a parent having the choice over something that significant in a child's life is flat out wrong. Not everybody shares "family values" with their parents.

I believe in wanted children. Reduces crime, too.

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Warriorbird]

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
So... children who have sex with their parents (forced or unforced) should have to have their parents approval for an abortion?

That was the extent of that law when it was proposed in Virginia. Yeah, I'm going to call that problematic.

What. The. Fuck. And this is standard and the norm.. where... that this needs to be in full force?


I think a parent having the choice over something that significant in a child's life is flat out wrong. Not everybody shares "family values" with their parents.

So because family values are fucked, we should let our children be fucked as well? Nice logic there, toots.

A child is a child, and the responsibility of the parent/guardian. Just because they're not great parents doesn't mean we start letting children making their own decisions... decisions that landed them in the abortion clinic to begin with. I disagree with that. Very much so.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I think a parent having the choice over something that significant in a child's life is flat out wrong. Wait... are you arguing for or against abortion with this statement? :?:

[Warriorbird]

I think abortion is murder. I think Roe vs Wade should be overturned on procedural grounds and the issue left up to the states. I don't think parental rights extend to a child's womb, however, and abortion is currently legal.

I believe that murder can be justified sometimes, however. I believe in the death penalty. I believe that bringing someone into the world unwanted is a crime in itself. I believe that having unwanted children attacks the fabric of society.

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Warriorbird]

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
What. The. Fuck. And this is standard and the norm.. where... that this needs to be in full force?
. Two states immediately come to mind. West Virginia and Alabama. :whistle:
Jerry Springer could probably validate.

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Just because they're not great parents doesn't mean we start letting children making their own decisions... decisions that landed them in the abortion clinic to begin with. Fortunately, the majority of us have never experienced life with crackhead/smackhead mothers and fathers. It happens already whether we'd like to believe it or not. And often times it is the child left with no choice but to make their own decisions. Not being great parents or as is usually the case, a single parent, doesn't even begin to brooch the truth of the matter in cases like that. I understand your bigger picture though, and agree with it to a large extent.

[Warriorbird]

There's also a lot of issues where close family friends or other family members coerce younger women and the parents want the kid to keep the child but the kid doesn't want to. Those're some of the other lovely situations that parental consent laws enable. There was a particularly brutal incident of that in an evangelical community in Nelson County, the county right next to mine in Virginia.

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by xtc
I think Democrats want a raving liberal to replace O'Connor.

I'm quite liberal but when it comes to something like the Supreme Court I prefer people who are moderates and will decide each case on its own merits.

I don't think that just because some previous Justices have not had judicial experience means it's a good idea. I find it extremely bothersome that Bush has nominated someone with very little experience on the bench to the highest seat and then turned right around and nominated someone with no experience for the next seat. The Supreme Court isn't a training academy!

At least in Robert's case he had experience arguing before the Supreme Court. Does Miers even have that?

RD

[Warriorbird]

I didn't have many qualms with Roberts. The Democrats are pretty much bent over a barrel due to the Republican Congress and it could've been a lot worse. With Miers I mainly just feel bad/puzzled for the Republicans.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Warriorbird
So... children who have sex with their parents (forced or unforced) should have to have their parents approval for an abortion?

That was the extent of that law when it was proposed in Virginia. Yeah, I'm going to call that problematic.

What. The. Fuck. And this is standard and the norm.. where... that this needs to be in full force?

West Virginia.

:smilegrin:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I don't think parental rights extend to a child's womb, however, and abortion is currently legal.




And since you like to take things to the extreme ('What about when parents have sex with their kids.. they need to get their parent's permission to have an abortion then too').. :rolleyes:

So you are saying that a 12 year old that gets pregnant, should be able to go down to the clinic and get herself an abortion without any notification to the parents at all??

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by CrystalTears
What. The. Fuck. And this is standard and the norm.. where... that this needs to be in full force?
. Two states immediately come to mind. West Virginia and Alabama. :whistle:
Jerry Springer could probably validate.

Curse you for beating me.

:sniffle:

[Warriorbird]

Since you like to take things to the extreme too, Parkbandit.


So you are saying that a 12 year old that gets pregnant, should be able to go down to the clinic and get herself an abortion without any notification to the parents at all??

If she doesn't want the child? Definitely. She's far less likely to be able to take care of it properly than an 18 year old in a similar situation. Maybe the unrelenting horror of the experience will convince her to never get in a situation like that again. Being that age she'll be more likely to be in danger from a pregnancy and it'll be more likely something messed up that got her there.

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Warriorbird]

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, the way that it formerly worked PB was that that child needed to be accompanied by someone over the age of 18: an aunt, uncle, grandparent etc was fine. Now, it is strictly the parents. Now, it is a felony for that aunt or uncle to take the child across state lines to a state that does not require parental consent. I take issue with that.

I don't think the former was a bad system at all, and I fully advocate some sort of counselling for girls at the clinic to be sure that an abortion is what they REALLY want. Absolutely though, marginalizing to two who is able to help a child with a problem is an issue IMO, especially if that child is from a problematic family.


-M

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Since you like to take things to the extreme too, Parkbandit.


So you are saying that a 12 year old that gets pregnant, should be able to go down to the clinic and get herself an abortion without any notification to the parents at all??

If she doesn't want the child? Definitely. She's far less likely to be able to take care of it properly than an 18 year old in a similar situation. Maybe the unrelenting horror of the experience will convince her to never get in a situation like that again. Being that age she'll be more likely to be in danger from a pregnancy and it'll be more likely something messed up that got her there.

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Warriorbird]

A 12 year old shouldn't be able to make that decision without her parent's knowledge. I'm pretty sure I speak for the large majority of Americans when I say that as well.

[ElanthianSiren]

Do you honestly think that abortive parental consent laws are most liberally applied to 12 year olds PB? I'm speaking demographically -- even by every 3 months if you prefer, rather than whole years.

-M

[Warriorbird]

A 12 year old shouldn't be able to make that decision without her parent's knowledge

So what if she's being forced into it when she doesn't want the child? What if it's a parents fault? What if she doesn't want to be forced to deal with something that was forced on her initially? What if she wants to have a kid when she can give it a good life?

Care to make that decision for every pregnant twelve year old kid? I'm sure you are a great father as much as we disagree but sadly not everyone fits up to your role model. I'd say your extremism was in the wrong direction on this one. I think a twelve year old deserves that right more than an 18 year old.

[Edited on 10-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Artha]

Aside from the blatant strawman, you act like 12 year olds are capable of making those decisions in an informed, well-thought-out manner.

[Warriorbird]

As far as blatant strawmen go...tweren't me first.

Are you even old enough to vote yet?

;)

I think counseling should be available to them. They sure aren't ready to be parents.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
As far as blatant strawmen go...tweren't me first.

Are you even old enough to vote yet?

;)

I think counseling should be available to them. They sure aren't ready to be parents.

No where did I ever say that they were ready to be parents. They are not capable of making decisions for themselves, let alone a newborn baby.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

A 12 year old shouldn't be able to make that decision without her parent's knowledge

So what if she's being forced into it when she doesn't want the child? What if it's a parents fault? What if she doesn't want to be forced to deal with something that was forced on her initially? What if she wants to have a kid when she can give it a good life?

Care to make that decision for every pregnant twelve year old kid? I'm sure you are a great father as much as we disagree but sadly not everyone fits up to your role model. I'd say your extremism was in the wrong direction on this one. I think a twelve year old deserves that right more than an 18 year old.

[Edited on 10-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

No law covers every contingency.. every circumstance. What percent of all young teenage pregnancies are with a child and their father? I'm going to guess that's a REAL small number. That's the entire basis of your argument. You are covering the smallest percentage of what ifs. And if it's the father that is having sex with his kid.. then there are government agencies that you can report this perv to and get him locked away.

[Warriorbird]

That a 12 year old kid could reasonably be expected to get to? No, we block those with laws like this and the laws forbidding counseling.

I'd actually say a pretty large percentage of 12 year olds are pregnant by unfortunate circumstances rather than for example 18 year olds.

To suggest that they have to have their parents permission to NOT be parents is inhumane. If they had halfway decent parents they probably wouldn't be in this situation.

[Edited on 10-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
That a 12 year old kid could reasonably be expected to get to? No, we block those with laws like this and the laws forbidding counseling.

I'd actually say a pretty large percentage of 12 year olds are pregnant by unfortunate circumstances rather than for example 18 year olds.

To suggest that they have to have their parents permission to NOT be parents is inhumane. If they had halfway decent parents they probably wouldn't be in this situation.

[Edited on 10-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

So if my child gets knocked up.. that automatically makes me a bad parent?

How many kids do you have Warriorbird?

[Warriorbird]

How many pregnant kids do you have?

I rest my case.

[CrystalTears]

You can't rest anything because you didn't prove anything.

He has more of a right as a parent to request that he have the right to know that his child is having an abortion, than you do as a non-parent who feels that a 12 year old has as much of a right as an 18 year old who is a legal adult.

A 12 year old is a child. I would prefer that a parent be involved in a child's abortion problems, and if they are not available, then I would be fine with another adult member of the family.

A child needs to have parental consent to get a piercing, a tattoo or anything else that they do to themselves, however I am not okay with a child under the age of 18 having the available means to get a procedure as difficult as an abortion and not have to tell a soul. That's just bullshit.

[Edited on 10/6/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

That forces unwanted children into the world. I think that's a crime. I think forcing someone to use their womb is a crime. Call me elitist, call me cold, but I'd rather children come into the world when people are ready to be parents to them. Maybe some of the societal decline that conservatives complain about so much would be reversed. I consider this a similar issue to my support for the death penalty.

[Edited on 10-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
If they had halfway decent parents they probably wouldn't be in this situation.



I agree with you mostly in this thread about notification, but this particular statement is just incorrect.

[Warriorbird]

:shrugs: It isn't necessarily a classical liberal ideal. I said it might come off as elitist. I think it probably is. Comes from having read a lot of Becker and Posner. They often write uncomfortable things but they tend to back them up very well.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
How many pregnant kids do you have?

I rest my case.

Actually, in order to "rest your case" you would have had to have knocked up your 12 year old daughter and not known about an abortion that was done on her because that was the decision she made... since that IS your case.

[Warriorbird]

Parkbandit... some know him as straw man...some know him as Falgrin...few know him as... accurate.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Parkbandit... some know him as straw man...some know him as Falgrin...few know him as... accurate.

Warriorbird.. some know him as talking out his ass without anything to go on.. some know him as a bleeding heart liberal who likes to hide behind the "I'M AN INDEPENDENT THOUGH" when they lose races.. few know him as having a point to any of his posts.

:smilegrin:

[Warriorbird]

Thank you for informing the world. I'm sure they've been helped by your highly on topic public service announcement.

:)

Have a nice day!

[xtc]

I received this email, should I sign the petition?

Dear,

Today, President Bush announced his choice to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as the next Supreme Court Justice: Harriet Miers. Ms. Miers is the third woman to be nominated for the Supreme Court, and like Justice O'Connor is a legal trailblazer. Ms. Miers is an extremely well-qualified and fair-minded individual who is committed to interpreting the law instead of legislating from the bench.

President Bush selected Ms. Miers after embarking on a thorough and deliberate thought process. This confirmation however promises to be much more contentious than the confirmation of Judge John Roberts. Before Ms. Miers was even announced many Democrat groups said they would oppose her. They have no interest in giving Ms. Miers a fair hearing or vote. They are promising to throw every punch, make every accusation and pressure every Senator to oppose this nominee no matter what her qualifications may be. We have to be prepared to counter their actions and that is why Harriet Miers needs your help.

To ensure Ms. Miers is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, I need you to do three things.

1. Call your Senators. Tell them Harriet Miers has your support and deserves theirs.

2. Sign our petition in support of the timely confirmation of Harriet Miers.

3. Call talk radio, write a letter to the editor of your local paper and tell your friends and neighbors why you support the President's choice.

Harriet Miers has a record that demonstrates a commitment to faithfully applying the Constitution. For more information on the nominee, go to www.gop.com.

In the coming years and decades, the decisions the Supreme Court makes will greatly affect all of our lives. We need a jurist on the court who will not legislate from the bench, who will approach cases with an open mind and who will be fair. Ms. Miers is that jurist. Call your Senators. Tell them to vote yes on the confirmation of Harriet Miers.

Sincerely,



Ken Mehlman,
RNC Chairman

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
President Bush selected Ms. Miers after embarking on a thorough and deliberate thought process.I wish they would, you know, READ these things before they send them out.

Also, hurray for talking points!

[ElanthianSiren]

Why would you ask us whether or not to sign something? If you support her, sign it. If you don't, don't sign it.

At least we've broken away from the name calling though.

-M

[xtc]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Why would you ask us whether or not to sign something? If you support her, sign it. If you don't, don't sign it.

At least we've broken away from the name calling though.

-M

I haven't condemned her, sight unseen, like many people here, however I haven't endorsed her either. I have reserved judgement until I know more.

I was opening up the question on the hope someone here had greater knowledge than myself, thus the question.

[ElanthianSiren]

Greater knowledge about what specifically?

-M

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
I haven't condemned her, sight unseen, like many people here, however I haven't endorsed her either. I have reserved judgement until I know more.

I was opening up the question on the hope someone here had greater knowledge than myself, thus the question.

Despite how qualified some people view her to be, I just can't accept that.

Her career as a lawyer, from what I have seen, has been in Texas where she's probably the "finest woman lawyer in a dog's age".

She appears to be highly, probably even Uber, conservative and way to partial to Bush. Granted, Bush isn't going to appoint a judge or lawyer who is antagonistic to his administration, but I question anyone who is first described as an "avid and outspoken" supporter.

Bush has put one to many incompetents in positions of power and on the federal pay roll, I'm not about believe this person is the exception considering the job is for life or resignation.

[CrystalTears]

This woman's name came out of nowhere. There are so many more qualified people out there, why choose the nobody?

I don't have anything against her as a person, but I don't understand at all why she was chosen. Is the only qualification Bush is looking at is "nice" and "former lawyer"? Quite frankly that's not good enough, especially not for an important and lifetime role in the supreme court. I just don't get it.

[Parkbandit]

This person will get through to the Court I believe as she has approval on both sides of the line. Some of the ultra conservatives and ultra liberals will have to be coddled into voting for her, but she'll get the nod.

I can only HOPE that Bush knows what he is doing and another O'Connor mistake doesn't happen.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by xtc
I haven't condemned her, sight unseen, like many people here, however I haven't endorsed her either. I have reserved judgement until I know more.

I was opening up the question on the hope someone here had greater knowledge than myself, thus the question.

Despite how qualified some people view her to be, I just can't accept that.

Her career as a lawyer, from what I have seen, has been in Texas where she's probably the "finest woman lawyer in a dog's age".

She appears to be highly, probably even Uber, conservative and way to partial to Bush. Granted, Bush isn't going to appoint a judge or lawyer who is antagonistic to his administration, but I question anyone who is first described as an "avid and outspoken" supporter.

Bush has put one to many incompetents in positions of power and on the federal pay roll, I'm not about believe this person is the exception considering the job is for life or resignation.


I had considered your points, her avid support of Bush concerns me and I can't say I am esctatic about her being from Texas. She won an award from the Anti-Defamation League and a Sandra Day O'Connor award. Those two make me think she couldn't be too Bush like. Additionally many conservative groups seem to be against her nomination. David Frum has written an article in The National Review, he seems to fear she isn't conservative enough and that she will succumb to the liberalism of the bench.

One side fears she is too conservative, the other side too liberal. Does this mean she is a centrist appointment? If so I may be inclined to support her.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by xtc

One side fears she is too conservative, the other side too liberal. Does this mean she is a centrist appointment? If so I may be inclined to support her.

No.. it simply means no one really knows for sure.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
There are so many more qualified people out there, why choose the nobody?If you're afraid of getting a rotten apple, don't get it from the barrel, get it off the tree.

That or maybe Bush is just getting popped and picking names out of a hat.

[xtc]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Greater knowledge about what specifically?

-M

Anything about her, all I know is what I read in wikopedia. She supported Dems earlier in her career and know is more Repub. She has BMath and BLaw from SMU. Masters in Law from Harvard. Partner Dallas law firm. Was Chief Whitehouse Council, held two other positions before that in the Whitehouse. She has done charity work and she belongs to an evangelical church.

[CrystalTears]

BFD. Appoint her as Attorney General instead and put Gonzalez then. He's more qualified than she is.

There is nothing "wrong" with her, it's just that there isn't anything "right" about her for this job either.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
If you're afraid of getting a rotten apple, don't get it from the barrel, get it off the tree.
That certainly didn't hold true for Augustus. Poison in his case, but I think you get my meaning. The rot could easily already be there. Just a thought.

His choice has stumped Democrats and Republicans alike. Interesting. The fact that there are both Democrats and Republicans that support it is even more interesting. I can't wait to see how it plays out.

[Skirmisher]

Anyone who says Bush is the most brilliant man they have ever met should automatically be disqualified.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DeV
That certainly didn't hold true for Augustus. Poison in his case, but I think you get my meaning.I'm afraid Roman History sits squarely on the list of things I have at best a passing familiarity with, so no, not really. :?:

[ElanthianSiren]

Presided, as chair, over the Texas Lottery Comission during one of its most corruption-ridden times.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/10/03/miers_had_stormy_tenure_at_texas_lottery/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/10/05/ri_firm_was_subject_of_probe_when_miers_ran_texas_ lottery/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+National+News
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46644


Most definitely not pro-choice, including references to Ron Keys, her 1993 crusade to try to sway the ABA Dallas position on Abortion from support to neutrality.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002538146_miersviews04.html

Apparently dines with anti-abortionists as well as contributing to their campaigns.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510040001


Born and raised either Catholic or Protestant, nobody's really sure.

Never married, never had kids, which makes me wonder how she will weigh on children and family issues. It also makes me wonder how the far right conservatives will view her (you know the ones I mean -- get thee to the kitchen woman).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/judicialnominees/miers.html


Became an Evangelical baptist by full immersion. Stayed a baptist for 26 years before following Ron Keys out (he clashed with ideological things in the church). Their new church, as it met in a hotel, obviously didn't have a website, but that's the website of her former church. Bush maintains she attends Episcopalian services in Washington:

http://www.vvcc.org/home.asp
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/176/story_17640_1.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/10/05/miers_joins_dallas_church_breakaway_group/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News


Regularly hangs out with the president on vacation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4304826.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-05-miers-family_x.htm


Is wishy washy on gay rights, prefering to contradict herself and not take a side.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002538146_miersviews04.html


Has a 91 year old mum that she is very close to and goes to visit often. Hope the government pays for lots and lots of flights to and from Texas.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-05-miers-family_x.htm


Standing by her man:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20041014.html

-M
(not sure if that helps. If you had specific questions, I could look)

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by DeV
That certainly didn't hold true for Augustus. Poison in his case, but I think you get my meaning.I'm afraid Roman History sits squarely on the list of things I have at best a passing familiarity with, so no, not really. :?: It was merely an attempt to debunk the opinion that just because the apple is coming directly from the tree it will more than likely not be rotten. Like I said, the rot could just as easily be there even if you're snatching that sucker directly from its source. The ability to taint and all that jazz. If you can't comprehend at this point then simply disregard it altogether. I'm sure someone else is able to catch my meaning.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Anyone who says Bush is the most brilliant man they have ever met should automatically be disqualified. Well, she has never been married and has no children. She could be telling the blatant truth with that one. In my opinion, met being the word that automatically catches my eye.

Spinsters, ftw.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Anyone who says Bush is the most brilliant man they have ever met should automatically be disqualified.
]
If she gets confirmed and she is everything Bush believes her to be.. I gotta say he played this brilliantly.

If she turns into Sandra Day II.. I'll probably be right there with you all thinking he's a fool.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I'll probably be right there with you all thinking he's a fool. Don't get it twisted. I don't think Bush is a fool in the least. Brilliant is not a word I'd use to describe him, though. But that's just me.

[Back]

http://www.zendada.com/images/miers.gif

[Edited on 10-6-2005 by Backlash]

[Artha]

^ That could be every justice nominee since Bork.

That said,
http://www.wonkette.com/blank%20sith%20miers.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
http://www.zendada.com/images/miers.gif

[Edited on 10-6-2005 by Backlash]

Read up on Robert's testimony on the reasons why they shouldn't answer many direct questions from the Senators. Makes a ton of sense.

[Back]

When asked, What would you decided on this current case? I agree. But something about a Supreme Court justice not being forthright doesn’t sit well with me.

Yes, I know, past nominees from both parties have used the tactic, but still there is something about it that doesn’t make sense.

We are too divided in this country if we have justices who wont answer questions for fear of one party not passing them. And because we are divided its a russian roulette of what we are going to get.

My particular statement about Miers is compounded by the fact that there are no public records that will be available. At least Roberts and others had public records to review.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Artha
That said,
http://www.wonkette.com/blank%20sith%20miers.jpg
OMG, Strangers With Candy! :heart: that show!

Err, yeah, back to your regularly scheduled topic..

[TheEschaton]

So....


All bickering about the abortive rights of 12 year olds aside, the original question still applies....

Harriet Miers, who the hell is she?

When're the confirmation hearings? I wonder if CNN World will have 'em.

Oh, I loved that RNC letter - especially since it seems that this is the least contentious pick Bush could of made short of nominating John Kerry for the Supreme Court (least contentious for Democrats, at least).

-TheE-

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
So....


All bickering about the abortive rights of 12 year olds aside, the original question still applies....

Harriet Miers, who the hell is she?

When're the confirmation hearings? I wonder if CNN World will have 'em.

Oh, I loved that RNC letter - especially since it seems that this is the least contentious pick Bush could of made short of nominating John Kerry for the Supreme Court (least contentious for Democrats, at least).

-TheE-

What is your logic that she is the least contentious? One could argue due to her lack of record, experience, the firestorm that this will stir with regard to Bush's appointment of Brown, and her arsinel of views that go against liberal thought that she's plenty contentious for the minority party. Have you been reading something that I have not?


-M

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by TheEschaton
When're the confirmation hearings? I wonder if CNN World will have 'em.

Oh, I loved that RNC letter - especially since it seems that this is the least contentious pick Bush could of made short of nominating John Kerry for the Supreme Court (least contentious for Democrats, at least).

-TheE-

What is your logic that she is the least contentious? One could argue due to her lack of record, experience, the firestorm that this will stir with regard to Bush's appointment of Brown, and her arsinel of views that go against liberal thought that she's plenty contentious for the minority party. Have you been reading something that I have not?


-M

She seemed initially like a less contentious candidate because she was basically a nobody and I think Bush thought of it as her being an easy vote-in.

I think (or should say hope) that he realize that what seems like an easy pick is far from the truth and that this selection has made her even more contentious than anyone else he could have chosen, simply because we know nothing about her other than being a good lawyer from Texas. BFD.

[Edited on 10/7/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Wezas]

Is there any hard evidence of her views? Other then the small anti-abortion contribution years ago?

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by TheEschaton
When're the confirmation hearings? I wonder if CNN World will have 'em.

Oh, I loved that RNC letter - especially since it seems that this is the least contentious pick Bush could of made short of nominating John Kerry for the Supreme Court (least contentious for Democrats, at least).

-TheE-

What is your logic that she is the least contentious? One could argue due to her lack of record, experience, the firestorm that this will stir with regard to Bush's appointment of Brown, and her arsinel of views that go against liberal thought that she's plenty contentious for the minority party. Have you been reading something that I have not?


-M

She seemed initially like a less contentious candidate because she was basically a nobody and I think Bush thought of it as her being an easy vote-in.

I think (or should say hope) that he realize that what seems like an easy pick is far from the truth and that this selection has made her even more contentious than anyone else he could have chosen, simply because we know nothing about her other than being a good lawyer from Texas. BFD.

[Edited on 10/7/2005 by CrystalTears]

True, but the first statement assumes that democrats have forgotten about Brown. I hate to pull race, but it's my opinion that much of the democratic base is minority or poor (which is not to say that all minorities are democrats, as my uncle is a through and through minority republican -- :heart: fun debates! or that all poor people have registered a democratic ticket). That IS to say that both are explanations often given by the most inflamatory to reason the poor performance of the federal government in Miss and Louisianna. Allowing another underqualified person into such a high position of power would be political suicide for the minority party. "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, I'm a dumbass."

I agree with your second paragraph in its entirety. Ms. Miers is going to have to answer questions about her personal views IMO. I don't see a way around it, as the review panel knows nothing about the woman.

Personally, I think that she is a throw-away nomination. Bush has his money on a filibuster, which would be harder to use a second time through. The democrats would do well to convince many republicans that this woman does not serve their interests, lest the next candidate be Ashcroft (women's boobies, oh no!).

-M

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DeV
that just because the apple is coming directly from the tree it will more than likely not be rotten.Ah I gotcha now. Wasn't his kid Octavian though? And wasn't Octavian pretty boss?

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Ah I gotcha now. Wasn't his kid Octavian though? And wasn't Octavian pretty boss? No, instead, "his" original name was Octavian until he started going by Augustus a little later on in his life. He was most definitely pretty boss.