Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Miers 34

Journal by pudge

I don't see how anyone can be so much against Harriet Miers when we don't even know anything about her yet. What's the point? How about wait until the hearings?

Gary Bauer says she "sounds to me a lot like another swing vote." Based on what?

Bill Kristol is calling for her ot be withdrawn because she is an "unknown and undistinguished figure." Sorry, I must have missed the part in the Constitution that said you must know about her, or that she have a certain sort of pedigree.

David Frum says she is someone who has "never found it necessary to express herself on any of the great issues of the day," "not someone who thought deeply or hard about legal issues." The former being true is a good thing for a justice who is to follow the law, not passion; the latter, if true, will be revealed in the hearings: it was perfectly evidence that Roberts was such a deep thinker, and she will be held up to his standard, still fresh in our minds.

Charles Krauthammer says if she were not a Bush crony, her appointment would be a joke.

President Truman nominated former U.S. AG Tom Clark, and Truman was attacked in the Washington Post for cronyism, saying she was unqualified except for that he was a personal friend of the President. Clark was confirmed, and was a well-respected member of the court.

Truman called Clark the biggest mistake of his Presidency, but mostly just because Clark wasn't a good crony: he sided against Truman when he seized the nation's steel mills to avert a strike (after advising Truman, as Attorney General, that Truman had the right to do it! Bad crony! No cookie!). Who can say what Miers will do in a similar situation?

Interestingly, LBJ engineered Clark's retirement in 1967 so LBJ could nominate Thurgood Marshall. Clark's son Ramsey was the new AG, and LBJ told Ramsey he thought there was a conflict of interest there, if Ramsey were to represent the government in front of his father. And thus LBJ got to nominate the first black justice to the Supreme Court.

Bottom line: let's just wait and see, for crying out loud. Be concerned, but don't jump to conclusions until they are warranted.

I may very well oppose Miers, but why would I do that until I actually had facts on which to base such opposition?

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Miers More

Miers

Comments Filter:
  • is himself quite the nutcase. [wikipedia.org] You often see him at International ANSWER rallies. And check out his client list - David Koresh, Saddam Hussein, and Charles Taylor.

    (But he helped Leonard Peltier, man! Power to the people!)

    • is himself quite the nutcase.

      Yeah. But I didn't want to make this about him. :-)

      You often see him at International ANSWER rallies.

      Yeah. I don't know if I mentioned him when I wrote about it -- I don't think so -- but I did see him at the communist rally in DC that I watched on CSPAN a few weeks ago.

      And check out his client list - David Koresh, Saddam Hussein, and Charles Taylor.

      Everybody needs a friend. :-)
    • So I reply to you, and I am on my way to bed, stopping in bathroom first, and I pick up latest National Review, and go to spot where I left off, and there is a blurb about Charles Taylor. Well, the current Liberian president, who recently set a record by agreeing to 103 international treaties in one sitting. Go go gadget diplomacy!
  • The problem is she looks like a crony, she acts like a crony and the Right wanted to shove the craziest Rightwingiest mother effer there was down the Left's throat... not some Milqtoast crony.

    • Re:Spade == Spade (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      The problem is she looks like a crony

      Being friends with the President means you look like a crony? If so, then there's nothing wrong with being a crony. You're defining the word down to be meaningless.

      she acts like a crony

      Nonsense. You don't know how she acts.
      • Pudge, stop it.

        Don't play 1984 with me.

        You put her credentials up against quite a few other people and she wouldn't even make the 3rd list. She may become the greatest Justice ever, I don't know. I do know her main consideration was made because Bush knows her.

        • Re:Spade == Spade (Score:1, Troll)

          by Jhon ( 241832 ) *
          Perhaps you should put her credentials up against past supreme court justices.

          I do know her main consideration was made because Bush knows her.

          You toss out crony and this last statement like it's shocking and appalling that anyone would have the gaul to do such things. That it's inappropriate.

          Try this: Go to google. Type ANY US president's name and the word "crony". For that matter, try that with any government executive ANYWHERE.

          It appears to me that you are the one playing "1984" games by using word

        • Re:Spade == Spade (Score:1, Troll)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          Pudge, stop it. Don't play 1984 with me.

          You spake bullshit, I called bullshit. *shrug*

          You put her credentials up against quite a few other people and she wouldn't even make the 3rd list.

          That's just pure nonsense. Her credentials are as good as Roberts'. More experience in federal court, more experience in trials, more understanding of the federal court system (and in fact, her credentials show she is better qualified to handle most of the Chief Justice duties than Roberts is, as this is the CJ's primary
          • Crony has a lot of connotations to it. The current one is not a good one.

            We all know a SCJ need not be a Judge.

            My point is (in the OP) that the Right wanted to shove a very Conservative SCJ down the Left's throats, but since we're on Miers so be it.

            Bush has setup a situation wherein he needs extremely "safe" picks. Picks that can't be "Borked." I doubt they're the strongest candidates. Robert's certainly wasn't, but he's in. And assuming he's healthy he'll be a SCJ for another 25-30 years. He evaded a
            • My point is (in the OP) that the Right wanted to shove a very Conservative SCJ down the Left's throats, but since we're on Miers so be it.

              Right, like I said: your beef is not her actual credentials or qualifications, but that she does not appear to fit what YOU WANT. So stop saying this is about her credentials or qualifications, because it really isn't. It's about your concerns over her views.

              Point is - it looks bad. It smells bad.

              And she will have every opportunity to display her quality, her temperamen
              • OK. Clearly there is no other choice here. It will be interesting, though, to see who rides her harder - Republicans or Democrats.
                • OK that came out all wrong...

                  but this is funny:


                  "Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on "The West Wing," let alone to be a real one." --Ann Coulter
          • And that's really the point: you don't mean that she is not qualified or lacks credentials. You mean that you don't have faith that she is really up to the task, intellectually. And that's a reasonable concern, but THAT IS WHAT THE HEARINGS ARE FOR. Chill out and wait for them.

            But, since the hearings never dredge up anything interesting as the candidates sidestep every direct question, they are pretty useless in really vetting someone. And we all know that being against someone because they don't directly

            • But, since the hearings never dredge up anything interesting as the candidates sidestep every direct question, they are pretty useless in really vetting someone.

              To find out specific views on specific issues, yes. But no one who watched a significant portion of the Roberts hearings could say that we didn't learn a lot about how Roberts would perform as a justice on the Supreme Court.
              • Roberts showed himself to be intelligent and "slick," but if I got the same responses in a job interview situation (yes, I am aware that isn't what the hearings are), then I would have tossed him from my pool as an evasive bastard.

                Again, the hearings do little to truly vet a candidate. So, it is better (and possibly proper) to dig the dirt on the candidate beforehand. Otherwise, either side could end up in an "I didn't think he'd do that" (Based on what? You're feelings about him?!?!) moment down the road
                • Roberts showed himself to be intelligent and "slick," but if I got the same responses in a job interview situation (yes, I am aware that isn't what the hearings are), then I would have tossed him from my pool as an evasive bastard.

                  I don't think your boss would have asked you your views on abortion. And if he had, you'd have every reason to be evasive.

                  Yes, abortion views are part of his job. But part of his actual responsibility according to the canons of judicial ethics is to refuse to say what his views

                  • Again, the hearings do little to truly vet a candidate.

                    Right. They are not supposed to.

                    So, it is better (and possibly proper) to dig the dirt on the candidate beforehand.

                    I never said or hinted otherwise.

                    I believe otherwise...

                    I don't see how anyone can be so much against Harriet Miers when we don't even know anything about her yet. What's the point? How about wait until the hearings?

                    So you agree that the hearings aren't good for vetting a candidate, and agree that investigating Miers before

                    • I believe otherwise...

                      You're wrong to do so. I've said or implied nothing contradictory to those statements.

                      It appears to me that you think I am saying the hearings are useless. I am not: I am saying, rather, that they are not for investigation, but confrontation.

                      It also appears to me that you are not distinguishing between investigation, and judging. I am saying: by all means, investigate, but reserve judgment until the end.

                      So you agree that the hearings aren't good for vetting a candidate

                      Right. In thi

    • I rather had the idea that pudge's purpose in this entry was to talk about irrational reasons people on the right are opposing the nomination. (As opposed to the irrational reasons coming from people on the left.)

  • Is the way Bush and Cheney are being dodgy about her. Cheney was on Rush Limbaugh the day of the announcement, and when Rush had reservations, Cheney just said 'trust me.' That scares the crap out of me. Blindly following is never a good spot to be in, especially for an elected official. Bush and Cheney have no further recourse, they're lame ducks (I'm fairly certain that Cheney will not be running for President in 2008). The Senators that are voicing concerns realize that they may have to deal with th
    • Is the way Bush and Cheney are being dodgy about her

      That's silly. They are going to be "dodgy" about any nominee. They were about Roberts too.

      That scares the crap out of me. Blindly following is never a good spot to be in

      I don't know what they said, but I don't care. I care about reality, which is that she will have a week or more of Senate hearings, which will give everyone plenty of opportunity to make up their own mind. At worst, you are in a situation of "trust, but verify." If you can't verify, th
      • No one -- not a single person in a position of power or authority -- is saying that anyone should blindly vote for her. You're offering a false scenario, one that does not exist in any way.

        You know, and I know that insider politics does indeed work that way, and the only way that the politicians in question could get out there, without being ostricized by the RNC, is to take it directly to the press. Bush and Co. expect Congress Republicans to fall in line. I suspect that eventually they will. I only hop
        • I don't know what you are talking about. The way this does work, and will work, is that the Senators of both parties are doing what they can to get the best justice they can get for the next 20 years, and will press Miers hard to make sure she is the one for the job, and will vote against her if she is not.

          Maybe if Bush had a ton of political capital available, it might be different. But few in the Senate really care too much about keeping Bush happy right now.
  • ...is that the Republicans AREN'T publically marching in lockstep over this one, at least not completely. Rush has expressed at least some skepticism, I've heard rumors from my friend in D.C. (who drinks with some senate aides) that there are rumblings of discontent from Congressional Republicans, and Ann Coulter (no, I don't read her regularly, this column was pointed out to me) has gone so far as to chew out Bush for not nominating another of the judges being groomed in the 1980s "while Bush was still bo
    • ...is that the Republicans AREN'T publically marching in lockstep over this one, at least not completely

      I listed four prominent right-wing pundits who have been very vocal opponents of her. You've made the understatement of the year: there's a significant split in the party over her.

      I gather the religious right isn't happy either

      Actually, they have mostly come out for her. James Dobson says he has information that shows she is pro-life/anti-Roe, but won't divulge it. And prominent pro-Christian-rights at
      • Hrm. I must be listening to the wrong religious-right pundits (well, reading the wrong summaries of the opinions of religious-right pundits, I don't follow them nearly as closely as I do the mainstream news sources online)

        Honestly, the most interesting part is the raw vitriol of Coulter's comment--she practically hits a moveon.org talking point with the "boozing it up" line. That's a level of intraparty rhetoric we haven't seen in a long while, at least on the GOP side of the line.
    • I heard an interesting thing the other day about the Bush's poll numbers. As they are at an all-time low right now, it doesn't matter if Bush pays attention to them or not (my bet is that he doesn't usually... until they get really low, as they are now... see acts of contrition after Katrina flubs).

      Bush's low numbers hurt Republicans in Congress looking to get re-elected, so they are keeping a close eye on them. I think that explains the Republican's reaction more than anything else and is also why BushC

      • The battleground over this nomination rests in only one place: whether the Republican Senators think she will be a good justice. They know this justice will be around a lot longer than most of them, and there's no serious political pressure on them either way.

        And this is just retarded:

        As part of the coordinated effort, activists Tuesday night approached Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., at St. Anselm College with a letter saying that Miers is qualified, deserves "fair treatment" and a filibuster-free up-or-down

  • Government IS the problem.

    In this case, it is the polarization and bitter partisanship that has developed over the years.
    • This isn't about partisanship, it is Republicans vs. Republicans.
      • "republicans" is a useful descriptor. There are liberal republicans and conservative republicans. Just like there are liberal democrats and conservative democrats. Our party alignment axis is useless. We REALLY need to ditch the republican vs. democrat thing because it really tells us nothing of the actual beliefs of those who profess a given party affiliation.

        In fact, a lot of the problem is that we have only two parties that ever win in the big elections. That forces people to fit themselves into one
        • "republicans" is a useful descriptor. There are liberal republicans and conservative republicans. Just like there are liberal democrats and conservative democrats. Our party alignment axis is useless.

          No moreso than your labels: is Frum a conservative Republican, or is Sekulow? George Will or James Dobson?

          We REALLY need to ditch the republican vs. democrat thing because it really tells us nothing of the actual beliefs of those who profess a given party affiliation.

          The premise doesn't lead the conclusion.
  • "Some moderate (i.e., lukewarm) conservatives admonish the rest of us to hold our fire until Ms. Miers's performance at her hearing tells us more about her outlook on law, but any significant revelations are highly unlikely." - Robert Bork [opinionjournal.com]
    • I did not say anyone should hold their fire. I said they should reserve judgment. Those are two different things (in this case, anyway; if you are in a real firefight, I suppose they are the same). I have no problem with someone saying, "we have no confidence that she has a mind strong enough, or sufficient background in and understanding of the Constiution, to be on the Supreme Court." Or asking tough questions. Etc. But reserve judgment until she has a chance to answer those charges and questions,

Slashdot Top Deals

Recent research has tended to show that the Abominable No-Man is being replaced by the Prohibitive Procrastinator. -- C.N. Parkinson

Close