Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal ellem's Journal: *sigh* GWB you stupid fuck 34

Journal by ellem

As many of you have read I'm not a huge Bush fan. (Of course a lot of you read the same things I wrote and decided I _was_ a big GWB fan.) I don't think he's a bad as they portray him and I think he'll be remembered as the President who almost stopped the Crusades but JESUS FUCKING CHRIST GEORGE...

You nominate your FUCKING LAWYER?

WHAT THE FUCK?

Are you retarded? I only hope this is some Rovian plot to get someone who is actually qualified to do something useful in there.

Doing a great job Brownie.

Christ on a fucking pogo stick George - You're a dick.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

*sigh* GWB you stupid fuck More

*sigh* GWB you stupid fuck

Comments Filter:

  • Yeah, (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Red Warrior ( 637634 ) * on Monday October 03, 2005 @11:33PM (#13709799) Homepage Journal
    'cuz we all know that a lawyer is totally unsuited for the job! WTF!!!

    Oh, wait, you merely meant "a lawyer who has no experience as a judge." OK, I guess I see your point. This is as bad as thinking Rehnquist might be qualified to sit on the supreme court. After all, he had no judicial experience, either. Other that sitting on SCOTUS.

    Yup, BUSH IS TEH SUCK!!!!! He thought a lawyer might know something about the law!!!

    ROFL

    • Re:Yeah, (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Cyberdyne ( 104305 ) *
      I was pretty surprised, and thought it an odd choice, but Bloomberg are reporting it as him trying to avoid a fight with this nomination?!

      That said, before ellem flies further off the handle, he might want to check whose idea this was. Some guy by the name of Harry Reid, it seems...

      ``Harriet Miers served with distinction as a trial lawyer. That's what I am,'' Reid told reporters after meeting with her. ``So anyone with that background makes me feel good -- someone who has been in a courtroom.''
      Reid's

      • Based on the availible evidence I think Miers is probably the best possible nominee the Democrats could hope for.

        Ok, she doesn't strike me as the 'brilliant legal mind' type, but not every justice who has been on the court makes it into Bartlett's Familiar Quotations either.

        Given her history I'm sure she'll get a 'well qualified' rating from the ABA as well.

        One somewhat amusing thing is the way some on the right are going absolutely batshit over Miers. The best thing for Democrats and liberals in general at
        • I'm reading a bunch of CT shit saying this is a Rovian plot to get some crazy ass hard core Right Winger installed.

          I like that Rove wors for the Left and the Right.
          • I'm reading a bunch of CT shit saying this is a Rovian plot to get some crazy ass hard core Right Winger installed.

            That would seem to be some rather twisted logic. I mean if Bush wants a crazy ass hard core Right Winger, why wouldn't he just nominate one? How does being forced to withdraw Meirs get him anything he wouldn't have by just nominating the crazy-ass judge in the first place?

            To be fair the moonbat contingent on the Left is also freaked because Reid and other Democrats were praising Meirs. They're
            • Now if they only left America in '04 like they said they would they could be sipping latte's in Montreal mocking us from a far while socialized dentistry rotted their teeth.
              • I'm begining to think that wouldn't have been such a bad idea.

                (both that sipping lattes in Montreal sounds attractive from time to time, and that I'm getting rather sick of the moonbats screwing shit up with their 'my way or the highway' extremism)
            • If he nominates Miers and she gets shot down by the Democrats, then it can be blamed on partisan politics (even if that's not why she was not approved) and make it harder for the Democrats to reject a qualified candidate down the road. Especially hard for the senators who voted no on Roberts and who vote no on Miers to argue that they're not just shooting down nominees indiscriminately.
              • I don't know if Meirs is shot down because a bunch of conservative Senators vote against her along with some Democrats it will be pretty hard to make the case that partisan politics is the reason.

                Frankly unless something that would make her totally unqualified comes up, the Democrats would be smart to do everything in their power to make sure she is approved. I seriously doubt Bush is likely to nominate anyone more acceptable to Democrats.
        • One somewhat amusing thing is the way some on the right are going absolutely batshit over Miers.

          When "Dingy Harry" Reid (don't blame me...I never voted for the bastard) and Chuckie Schumer are saying good things about her, it has to be cause for concern. There is always the possibility that W knows something about her that we don't, but I think there are safer choices he could've made.

          • When "Dingy Harry" Reid (don't blame me...I never voted for the bastard) and Chuckie Schumer are saying good things about her, it has to be cause for concern. There is always the possibility that W knows something about her that we don't, but I think there are safer choices he could've made.

            I understand the concern from the right. I also think the Democrats are stupid if they don't try to use it to their advantage. If Senators like Brownback and Cornyn are the ones demanding her papers from the Whitehouse a
      • Interestingly enough, the left seems to be taking it fairly well (of course, I think that's just because she wasn't in their opposition research briefings...). The right seems to be split right down the middle on her - though I think they will vote for her as the President's nominee. So, I think he MIGHT get away without a big fight. That said, I have no idea/knowledge about her. Other than that her law firm donated to the Gore campaign in '88. :-)
    • OK I'm slightly less agitated now.

      But the fact is the ONLY reason she's nominated because she's a crony. In the Webster's definition of the term. Hamilton warned us about this shit. Just turn the tables. It 1998 and Clinton nominates David Kendall. Who's David Kendall? Clinton's personal lawyer.
      • But the fact is the ONLY reason she's nominated because she's a crony.

        I'll bet the that the fact that Bush thinks she has the views he wants to see in a supreme court justice has something to do with it.

        The question should be: "Is David Kendall a GOOD CHOICE?"

    • In theory, he knows her ideology since he has worked closely with her, so this is a plus. However, in reality it looks bad since it is his personal lawyer.

      I am sure that Reid will be spitting fireballs again in a week. He had good things to say about Roberts at first, then look at his crap in the last month before the confirmation hearings. Imagine all the crap about wanting to see her documents while working for Bush that the Left is going to pull this time.
      • I'm usually in agreement with GWB's decisions, but not on this one. I have to say that this smacks of cronyism, even if it isn't, and can only weaken the president. I think he would have been better off had he just gone with a contentious nominee and let the fight go to Congress.

        Also, one thing about the document wrangling you mentioned. The democrats are an opposition party, so it's their job to raise a stink. Nothing unusual there. They haven't turned anything up so far, so nothing wrong with that. Just p
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Nobody's arguing that Miers has to be, say, an ex-Supreme Court judge. But expecting her to have something that particularly qualifies her for the job isn't much to ask for. There just isn't anything obvious here.

        So what is required? Would it help if she were the chief counsel for the ACLU?

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Can I take it then that your position is that you'd be happy with a lawyer's lottery, where any lawyer with a couple of decades of experience in pretty much any field, can take part, the winner (chosen at random) becoming Supreme Court judge?

            If you find that preferable to answering my question, sure. :-) I haven't taken a position on whether she should be confirmed, btw.

            I assume this is the case, because your response seems to be based upon the notion that those who actually want her to have some qualific

            • So, what EXPERIENCE BEYOND BEING A LAWYER[1] is required.

              Anything indicating she has any kind of qualifications for judging matters of constitutional law. I.E. has participated in supreme court (or even appellate court) cases, clerked for a Supreme Court or appellate court judge for an appreciable amount of time, argued cases before the Court, etc. Of course being a judge puts one in a position to know constitutional law, because SCOTUS precedent figures heavily in your job as well.

              I don't understand why

              • I don't understand why that is at all controversial or needs explicitly spelling out. It seems obvious.

                Uhmmm... It needs spelling out because the only way you can tell if someone measures up is to know what yardstick is being used. Duh.

                Anything indicating she has any kind of qualifications for judging matters of constitutional law.

                So, what things meet that criteria? Being a successful law partner, president of a law firm, president of a state bar association, and counselor to a sitting president would s

        • Would it help if she were the chief counsel for the ACLU?

          Yes. It would.
    • I know the real reason you can't nominate her...

      She doesn't go by her full name... she's not Sandra Day O'Conner, or Ruth Bader Ginsberg.... give the chick her middle name, and she'll be welcomed with open arms! :D
  • i've been on this earth for forty years and i ain't never met no bitch named condaLEEZA!

    his story about dropping the nuke was hilarious
  • It's weird to me. Republicans usually have this kind of sixth-sense for when to turn on and turn off their suspension of disbelief. A significant number of previous SCOTUS judges had no prior experience as judges before being appointed. Yet I spent an inordinate amount of time over the last day reading "She's never been a judge before!" as if that's big news. It's one thing from ignorant or mendacious left-wingers throwing eggs, but I'm amazed the right wing didn't get the memo.

    I know the hard liners want t

Slashdot Top Deals

I like work; it fascinates me; I can sit and look at it for hours.

Close