Bush nominates Harriet Miers for Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Mike Teezie, Oct 3, 2005.

  1. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    #1
    Link

    SHOCKER.......He nominates his previous personal lawyer to the highest court in the land.

    I don't know anything about her, and it seems neither does anyone else....
     
  2. broken_keyboard macrumors 65816

    broken_keyboard

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    Secret Moon base
    #2
    There is something about her face that makes me have no confidence in her.

    Does anyone else get the same feeling? I have been searching Google Images for similar faces to see if maybe someone historical who looked like her has abused power or some such...
     

    Attached Files:

  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    Hey, it's always a good idea to install people close to you on the SCOTUS. You never know when you'll need a favor from the court...
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    I think this will be a pattern in the future on judicial nominees as well. Lawyers with little or no experience on the bench (read: few decisions to comb through, and papers that can be withheld -- particularly if the nominee has been close to you or your party) will be nominated to prevent the opposition from being able to dig up any major dirt. They will be carefully vetted to prevent getting 'Soutered' and they will likely be close to major power brokers in the nominating party. It seemed to work well for Roberts.

    You can tell the GOP is still stinging from the Bork hearings.
     
  5. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #5
    well i read that she has absolute no judge expierence.. hows that gonna work ? it's ridiculous
     
  6. broken_keyboard macrumors 65816

    broken_keyboard

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    Secret Moon base
    #6
    As Bush said in his speech, 35 previous Supreme Court Justices had no previous experience on the bench. They only have to be an accomplished person...
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    They really don't have to be an accomplished anything, in reality. They only have to be able to get through the confirmation process. Bush has nominated a cypher for political reasons. You can be sure Bush knows her views on the big legal issues of the day, but that even after the hearings are all said and done, that few Americans will.
     
  8. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #8
    well then the US _supreme_ court is not more than a joke or a political instrument .. over here the supreme court it's mostly made up of the most experienced judges

    it doesn't make sense to me at all
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Well, you know, it worked out so well when Bush nominated a FEMA director with no previous experience that he figured he'd try it with the SCOTUS. :rolleyes:

    Actually I'm less concerned with her lack of experience as I am with her lack of a paper trail (done on purpose no doubt, and abetted by the Senate Democrats who allowed Roberts through despite the lack of documents being provided by the WH) and her apparent close personal ties to Bush. This has become a hallmark of the Bush administration, take someone who never would have made the position on their merits and elevate them to a point that they owe their position to the don.... I mean to Bush.

    You can guarantee that if the Bush family ever needs anything from the Supreme Court (gee, when could that happen?) she will be a reliable vote for whatever side they want from her.

    Patronage is patronage is patronage.
     
  10. ColoJohnBoy macrumors 65816

    ColoJohnBoy

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #10
    Strange... even though she has no judicial experience, she's one of the few people Harry Reid encouraged Bush to consider for the post. Except for being pro-life and mostly anti-gun control, Reid is quite liberal. Can't figure this one out. I almost would rather Bush had nominated Alberto Gonzales - he may be reprehensible when it comes to... well, the Abu Ghraib prisoners, but if he's as socially liberal as many conservatives believe.... I suppose what I mean to say is when to comes down to what expect of a Bush appointee, we liberals can't hope for too much. To have him nominate someone with liberal views on ANY issue is a blessing.

    We'll see. Maybe John Roberts will turn out to be another Earl Warren and Harriet Miers another Sandra Day O'Connor... hopefully.
     
  11. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #11
    dunno the accuracy, but some interesting bits from the non-MSM:
    (emphasis theirs)
     
  12. Deepdale macrumors 68000

    Deepdale

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    It's basically the same reaction when I look at his face. For some reason when I glance at Harriet Miers I have a better idea as to what Norman Bates' mom may have looked like before she was moved to the fruit cellar.

    "Mother, please stop complaining ... it won't be that chilly once I bring your favorite blanket down to you."
     
  13. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #13
    There is this interesting bit of information from one of the MSNBC articles:
    It is interesting to me that when Bush 41 was running, she was donating money to the other side. Of course, she may have been contributing to both political parties during that election (the article doesn't specifically address that question).
     
  14. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #14
    following up, from today's WH press briefing (i'm guessing this is ABC's terry moran):
    "cronyism" was mentioned several times in the briefing.
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    "definitional"? When did that replace "definitive"?
     
  16. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    right after "utilize" replaced "use".
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    Of course, that was before "utilise" replaced "utilize", wasn't it?
    :D
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  19. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #20
    With the Roberts nomination and now this, I'm beginning to think the criteria for selection isn't ideological purity, but rather blind loyalty to Bush so he can count on them to keep him out of jail as his crimes come to light.
     
  20. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #21
    well Bush has made it clear that he wants those who work under him to be his yes man, so it makes sense in a way.
     
  21. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #22
    Like an exoneration?

    Yeah. We get one guy promoted to chief justice before he's worked a day on the Supreme Court, and another one with no judicial experience.

    Bush is laughing at us.

    Hmm...for a press secretary detailing such an important event, McClellan has suddently become Mr. Obtuse. Strange....
     
  22. broken_keyboard macrumors 65816

    broken_keyboard

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    Secret Moon base
    #23
    Well that's what he (Bush) has been saying all along...

    He is being responsible and not picking ideologues, but as he says, those who will not legislate from the bench.
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    How do we know?
     
  24. Deepdale macrumors 68000

    Deepdale

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Location:
    New York
    #25
    Tonight's Charlie Rose show

    A conservative commentator, clearly displeased with President Bush's earlier nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, made a statement that Harriet Miers is on the record as having said that George W. Bush is the most intelligent man she has ever met.

    That was greeted with polite laughter by both Charlie, Harvard professor Laurence Tribe and NPR's legal correspondent Nina Totenberg. Question: Should we be laughing or should we be very scared?
     

Share This Page