Harriet Miers ousted by her own party

[Tromp]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme
Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting
criticism about her qualifications.

Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of
insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on
calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that
the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access
to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the
White House - disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to
receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates
her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation
of powers - and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

[Gan]

Good decision.

[Wezas]

Agreed. Too much controversy on both sides of the fence about her. She would have never made it through.

[CrystalTears]

Thank God.

Now to see what other bonehead person he chooses.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Thank God.

Now to see what other bonehead person he chooses.

I personally believe that Miers' nomination was largely symbolic - "See, we put a woman up, and you didn't like her!"

I expect the next nominee to be a minority male - perhaps our current Attorney General.

Jorddyn, just making guesses

[Tromp]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Thank God.

Now to see what other bonehead person he chooses.

I personally believe that Miers' nomination was largely symbolic - "See, we put a woman up, and you didn't like her!"

I expect the next nominee to be a minority male - perhaps our current Attorney General.

Jorddyn, just making guesses

That would fly if the people demanding for her resignation were from the left. It was the conservative religous right who ouster her.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Thank God.

Now to see what other bonehead person he chooses.

Babysitter? Gardener?

Which "insider" will it be this time?

[Hulkein]

He should nominate John Edwards.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Hulkein
He should nominate John Edwards.

The former VP candidate or the psychic?

:lol:

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Tromp
That would fly if the people demanding for her resignation were from the left. It was the conservative religous right who ouster her.

Eh, I don't think either side was too happy with her. Once that became obvious, I think the left pulled back, and let the right get rid of her on their own.

Additionally, any objections the left may have to the next nominee won't appear as partisan. After all, the right got rid of the first nominee. It's fair that the left have objections, too.

Again, just my opinion.

Jorddyn, beginning to think she needs a tin foil hat

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Hulkein
He should nominate John Edwards.

The former VP candidate or the psychic?

:lol:

I thought the psychic was just John Edward.

Either way, probably get more support than Miers. I'm happy she withdrew.

[Warriorbird]

I'm glad, even if we end up with someone who's views I disagree with on the court they should at least have some background in Supreme Court issues/constitutional law.

Once again, I'll hope for Posner but I doubt it'll happen.

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Warriorbird]

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I'm glad, even if we end up with someone who's views I disagree with on the court they should at least have some background in Supreme Court issues/constitutional law.


Also, I agree with Jorddyn that her nomination was largely symbolic. It's disheartening to me to play throw away with a nomination just to say you nominated a woman. I hope the next candidate can be a fair one, with platforms that don't require the kind of contentuous battle people predicted.

-M

[Drezzt]

IMHO she may have been fully qualified, but unless/until she's willing to put up some real, SOLID republican votes and show a good history, 'pubs are never gonna vote for her. And that's that.

Good riddance.

[Parkbandit]

:clap:

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
:clap:

:thumbsdown:

Jorddyn

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
:clap:

:cheer:

[Latrinsorm]

Isn't he the guy who was taking shots at the Geneva Convention?

[Tromp]

I personally believe that everyone will find something wrong with any person that is selected.

All we can hope for it an excellent judge who looks at things in accordance to the law not based on who put them there, race, religion, blah blah blah.

Meyers was just a sacrificial lamb. She may have been great but we'll never know.

Needless to say, the religous right will do what they can to get their chip cashed in by da Bushy so lets just get it over with.

[CrystalTears]

I didn't have a problem with Roberts. Why? Because he had judicial AND constitutional experience. Mier had nothing that would show her as having constitutional experience. Zero. Zip. Nada. I saw NO reason to appoint her. I tried to see what the big deal was. All she was, was a woman that Bush admired. That's all I saw in it. That's not reason enough for me to hold a seat in the Supreme Court.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Isn't he the guy who was taking shots at the Geneva Convention?

I only vaguely remembered hearing this, so I read the whole memo. Interesting.

There is a copy of it here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek).

Short version of what the memo is about - DOJ says the the Geneva Convention (GPW) doesn't apply to our war on terror. Bush agrees. Secretary of State Colin Powell and his legal advisor disagree. In this memo, Gonzalez gives pros and cons.

Pros for saying the GPW doesn't apply:
Flexibility
Reduces threat of criminal prosecution

Cons:
We've always followed the convention. (He later rebuts this - Panama 1989)
If we don't have to follow it, they certainly don't. (We're still humane, so I'm sure they will be, too. And if they aren't, we'll try them)
Condemnation among our allies (he agrees).
We couldn't prosecute them.
If we find a loophole, other countries may do the same.
Other countries won't help us out as much if we don't play by the rules. (But we're still constrained by our commitment to treating detainees humanely).
Something about military culture I don't quite understand. (He rebuts it anyway).

And, his opinion?

"On balance, I believe that the arguments for reconsideration and reversal are unpersuasive."

Jorddyn

disclaimer: This post was paraphrased, and obviously shows my opinion. You are free to read through the four pages of legalese and refute any of what I said, or point out anything I may have missed.

[Back]

How much does anyone want to bet that Bush’s next pick is ultra-conservative?

[DeV]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by Parkbandit
:clap:

:thumbsdown:

Jorddyn Agreed.

And good riddance to that kooky looking brown noser.

[Tromp]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by Parkbandit
:clap:

:thumbsdown:

Jorddyn Agreed.

And good riddance to that kooky looking brown noser.

You referring to John R. Bolton the recently appointed ambassador to the U.N.? He still has salad tossings in his mustache.

[DeV]

The kooky looking brown noser bit was for the recently departed Ms. Miers.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
How much does anyone want to bet that Bush’s next pick is ultra-conservative?

I hope he/she is at LEAST a known conservative. You don't think he would nominate a liberal.. do you?

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
How much does anyone want to bet that Bush’s next pick is ultra-conservative?

I hope he/she is at LEAST a known conservative. You don't think he would nominate a liberal.. do you?

No, I just think this has set the stage for nominating someone to the far far right. The right openly decried Miers as not conservative enough.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I hope he/she is at LEAST a known conservative. You don't think he would nominate a liberal.. do you?

I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to think he'd do that.

Some of us are optimistic enough to hope for a moderate or not-all-the-way-right.

Jorddyn

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
Some of us are optimistic enough to hope for a moderate or not-all-the-way-right.

Jorddyn

We're talking about the same president, right?

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Jorddyn
Some of us are optimistic enough to hope for a moderate or not-all-the-way-right.

Jorddyn

We're talking about the same president, right?

You'll notice I said optimistic and hope and not-all-the-way-right.

But you're right, I probably should have used more qualifiers :D

Jorddyn

[Parkbandit]

Bush would be foolish if he didn't nominate a true conservative this time around. While Miers could have been a good choice for the bench, very little was known about her and the country's conservatives didn't want another mistake like O'Connor was.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Bush would be foolish if he didn't nominate a true conservative this time around. While Miers could have been a good choice for the bench, very little was known about her and the country's conservatives didn't want another mistake like O'Connor was.


Or Souter, or John Paul Stevens, or Kennedy. We've got screwed over too many times when conservative presidents have nominated liberal justices.

[Warriorbird]

Alternately you may be seeing an illustration of the Republican Party's slide to a certain part of the right contrasted with the fact that activism versus constructionism isn't necessarily connected with someone's political views. A lot of fairly economically conservative jurists don't fit in with the current Republican Party's notion of "morals." Activism can apply to conservative causes as well.

[Ilvane]

Honestly, more right than Miers kind of scares me.

I would like someone who at least has a judicial record to examine a bit before it is decided they should be a judge on the Supreme Court.

-A

[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Ilvane]

[CrystalTears]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42130&rss=1

Bush To Nominate Next Person Who Walks Through Door

October 27, 2005 | Issue 41•43

WASHINGTON, DC—After Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court Thursday, President Bush announced that he will nominate the next person who walks through his door. "I assure the American people that the next person who enters my field of vision will be a highly qualified candidate of unimpeachable character, with a solid record, and--what's more--a good heart," Bush said. As of press time, 17 people were waiting outside the door, including the president's daughter Jenna, and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

[Wezas]

I noticed all of the news stations were saying that a large part of conservatives had issue with her and were likely the main reason she was removing herself.

Except for Fox News.

Which made it a point to say "Radical Republicans forced her out".

[Tromp]

Wasn't there a commercial that aired on Tuesday that the "radical republicanitos/religous wackos" created in order to retract her nomination? Did anyone see it?

[Valthissa]

Bush would have done well to read the Federalist 76 prior to nominating Miers.

full text here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_76.html

I especially like:

"The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."

Impressive reasoning, if you ask me - and still valid 217 years later.

C/Valth

[Back]

The next pick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Alito,_Jr.)?