NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush to Pick White House Counsel Harriet Miers for Supreme Court (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171050,00.html)

She has been selected to replace Sandra Day Oconner.

Thoughts?

Thought Numero Uno:
Is that kind of Cronyism normal?

Thought Numero Two (bugger, so much for my Spanish :D ):
What is her stance on the issues?

EDIT: WTF???!!! She's never been a judge? F&*king Jesus Christ. That is not normal.

Conservatives call Miers a top-notch lawyer who understands the limited role they say judges should play in society. In nominating Miers, they say Bush is reaffirming his commitment to picking judges who will respect the letter of the law and not allow cultural or social trends sway their opinions.
Translated to plain English: We expect Miers to unquestionably shift the balance of power on the court to the right and overturn all progressive agendas we disagree with.

not legislate from the bench
REad: rule against homosexuals, abortions, and other progressive rights and for big business, illegal immigration and other strange things we support.

Thought Numero Uno:
Is that kind of Cronyism normal?

Thought Numero Two (bugger, so much for my Spanish :D ):
What is her stance on the issues?

EDIT: WTF???!!! She's never been a judge? F&*king Jesus Christ. That is not normal.

For a Supreme Court Pick, it actually IS the norm. It is a known fact that most of the Supreme Court either had little OR NO judicial experience on the bench.

For a Supreme Court Pick, it actually IS the norm.
Well, shows how much I know about judicial matters...

Nonetheless, that is cronyism of the worst sort. I would actually have been happier if he had chosen Posner.

For a Supreme Court Pick, it actually IS the norm. It is a known fact that most of the Supreme Court either had little OR NO judicial experience on the bench.


Youre kidding me?

Rhenquist?

O Connor?

None of em?

Well, shows how much I know about judicial matters...

Nonetheless, that is cronyism of the worst sort. I would actually have been happier if he had chosen Posner.
If Bush is anything, it is consistent in his cronyism.

Harriet Miers serves as Counsel to the President. Most recently, she served as Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff, and prior to that she was Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary.



Before joining the President’s staff, she was Co-Managing Partner at Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP from 1998-2000. She had worked at the Locke Purnell, Rain & Harrell firm, or its predecessor, from 1972 until its merger with the Liddell Sapp firm. From 1995 until 2000, she was chair of the Texas Lottery Commission. In 1992, Harriet became the first woman president of the Texas State Bar, and in 1985 she became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association. She also served as a Member-At-Large on the Dallas City Council.



Harriet received both her undergraduate and law degrees from Southern Methodist University.



I do not know a thing about her . what makes her capable of being a judge never mind a supreme court justice ? Its going to be a trip trying to figure this one out ! Thats two hard to figure out picks ...it had to be done purposely.. :)

Youre kidding me?

Rhenquist?

O Connor?

None of em?

People who had ZERO experience on the Bench (from 1949)

Clark
Warren
B.R. White
Goldberg
Fortas
Powell
Rehnquist

For a complete list, The Judicial Process By Henry J. Abraham, Table 2 pgs 58-60.

I do have the complete list here in front of me of those that have little to none bench experience.

" ol Bushy is on the TV now trying to sell it . :) Well she's a women there is that I suppose .

If Meirs is as vague as Roberts was during questioning, I'd expect this to be a political cat-fight of epic proportions.

Didn't Rehnquist often argue before the Supreme Court? Or am I confusing him with some one else?

ol Bushy is on the TV now trying to sell it . :)
Change the channel. Is he on Pay TV as well? Wouldn't that be government oppression, socialism even? ;)

If Meirs is as vague as Roberts was during questioning, I'd expect this to be a political cat-fight of epic proportions.
Hihihihi...with Bush approval ratings at low (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112481890611420718-_YHqCe_oM7fXMITSkTO2yCR8ZiM_20060824.html?mod=blogs) as they have been in the past month or so - that'll be a spectacle.

Fecking typical....John Bowen Hates the UN and globalisation..but he's still UN ambassador


Now this lone has never even been a judge. Thats absolutely disgracefull. Is Bush on drugs? I seriously think he is not mentally fit to be President, let alone a normal job. i'm not a Bush supporter, I never have been but this is beyond a joke. Did all that alcohol erase the majority of his brain cells.......

I'm... very surprised. I would have expected Bush to have gone full tilt into a fight for the swing seat. Given that she has NO record, and since many justices have gone rouge once appointed, there's no way to tell HOW she's going to react. It seems a safe bet for Bush (personally, I think it's because he is at such a low, any drawn out battle would not favore him), but I wonder if she will be the justice he's hoping for.

I am a little iffy on the whole pick a close friend thing, I know Bush has a thing for loyality, but after Brown...

I do feel sorry for her though, she's gonna get reemed in the Senate by both sides.

Thought Numero Uno:
Is that kind of Cronyism normal?

Thought Numero Two (bugger, so much for my Spanish :D ):
What is her stance on the issues?

EDIT: WTF???!!! She's never been a judge? F&*king Jesus Christ. That is not normal.
Oh, bullshit! Kennedy selected a non-lawyer for the SC, for crying out loud! AND, there were no threats of fillibuster by the Republicans! Get your facts straight, please! Jeeze. :(

Fecking typical....John Bowen Hates the UN and globalisation..but he's still UN ambassador

Now this lone has never even been a judge. Thats absolutely disgracefull. Is Bush on drugs? I seriously think he is not mentally fit to be President, let alone a normal job. i'm not a Bush supporter, I never have been but this is beyond a joke. Did all that alcohol erase the majority of his brain cells.......
Get your facts straight, please. [ see my last post above ] :rolleyes:

Oh, bullshit! Kennedy selected a non-lawyer for the SC, for crying out loud! AND, there were no threats of fillibuster by the Republicans! Get your facts straight, please! Jeeze. :(
Note that I admitted being wrong, as Corneliu pointed out. I didn't edit my post because I'm not ashamed when I am wrong, and because Corneliu had quoted me anyways, and editing it wouldn't change anything.
I'm not a specialist on how the supreme court works. It doesn't concern my life, and so I didn't inform myself in depth.
My feeble understanding of politics and law suggested that it would be a good idea to have some experience if you want to get the top job in the US judcative system. I guess I was wrong, in America, you really can make it from a campaign spindoctor to supreme court judge in no time...

Folks here might want to read this
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20041029.html

:)

Folks here might want to read this
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20041029.html

:)


Ummmm, a bunch of people backslapping bush and being heartily encouraged in that by the woman in question.

Folks here might want to read this
Thanks!

I liked this question especially. Always good to have a critical audience!
Jeff, from Groton, NY writes: Good afternoon Harriot. Thank you for taking my question. Why is it hard for your administration to get the word out that the economy is not bad at all. The current numbers look fantasitic. Why are people ignoring the fact that this President is doing a tremendous job with the economy?

My feeble understanding of politics and law suggested that it would be a good idea to have some experience if you want to get the top job in the US judcative system. I guess I was wrong, in America, you really can make it from a campaign spindoctor to supreme court judge in no time...
Sour grapes. :rolleyes:

It's good to have friends in high places! Just put them there. Bush is acting some Holy Roman Emperor, picking his own Bishops and Pope.

Ummmm, a bunch of people backslapping bush and being heartily encouraged in that by the woman in question.
Um ... how about because it was her, like ... job??? :rolleyes:

Bush to Pick White House Counsel Harriet Miers for Supreme Court (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171050,00.html)

She has been selected to replace Sandra Day Oconner.

Thoughts?

My first, gut reaction, is that Bush has offered up a sacrificial Lamb for the Dems to block. Then he will come out with his real nominee.

My second thought is she does have legal experience as president of the Texas and Dallas Bar Associations, even if she doesn't have bench time. The only real question to ask, is is she capable of interpreting the Constitution. That is the only job the Supreme Court really has. I am sure that we will hear in the next few days of some people enraged by her for some stupid reason that won't really make any sense. I imagine the process will take longer for her than it did with Roberts, specifically because it will take time for the Senate Committee to try to flush out her opinions, when they need to focus on her interpretation. That is one thing that has always bothered me about court nominations. It seems everyone gets upset about what the persons opinions are, with no regard for what their interpretations of the law are. For example, I am against some things (it doesn't matter what for the purpose of this thread) but that does not mean I do not believe other people don't have the right to do those things. So if I was a judge, I would focus on what the law (in this case the Constitution specifically) says about the issues, and not what my personal feelings are about those issues.

Sour grapes. :rolleyes:

You really do have the most corrupt system don't you :eek:

Really. I'm shocked by this. In the UK our high courts (we have no direct equivalent to the Supreme Court) are stocked with senior judges. You can't be a Law Lord without having been a judge in the other 3 courts.

In the US you don't even need legal training!

Um ... how about because it was her, like ... job??? :rolleyes:

Yeah, and that's a great qualification for being one of the 9 most powerful unelected beings in the USA...

She is clean and honest - something most dems can't say !

Yeah, and that's a great qualification for being one of the 9 most powerful unelected beings in the USA...

And for how long was half the UK Gov't run by unelected "beings" whose only qualification was being born in the right family?

Hihihihi...with Bush approval ratings at low (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112481890611420718-_YHqCe_oM7fXMITSkTO2yCR8ZiM_20060824.html?mod=blogs) as they have been in the past month or so - that'll be a spectacle.

So, do you actually believe that a nominee should state things such as,

"I'll vote in favor of the right to keep and bear arms as a personal right, no matter what"

or equally ridiculous,

"I'll vote in favor of the right to abortion as a personal right, no matter what"

You know, the Supreme Court is not a body of people who are elected based on their promises to uphold or deny decisions.

I looked at wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

She has worked in private practice for Locke, Purnell, Raine & Harrell from 1972 until 1999, eventually becoming company President, and was George W. Bush's personal lawyer.

And for how long was half the UK Gov't run by unelected "beings" whose only qualification was being born in the right family?

A governmental system that is mostly powerless now and is being run by a parliament which at least has some semblance of accountability to the people (like Congress). The US supreme court is still run by unelected officials who do not need experience.

As they say: Get with the program.

I mean, you guys are still using imperial units instead of metric.

And for how long was half the UK Gov't run by unelected "beings" whose only qualification was being born in the right family?

Too damn long. However, we are sorting it out. Of course right now it's in Blair's interests to ignore his previous plans so it goes on the back burner again. But at least something is being done.

I looked at wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

She has worked in private practice for Locke, Purnell, Raine & Harrell from 1972 until 1999, eventually becoming company President, and was George W. Bush's personal lawyer.

That only implies that she's smarter than he is.

A governmental system that is mostly powerless now and is being run by a parliament which at least has some semblance of accountability to the people (like Congress). The US supreme court is still run by unelected officials who do not need experience.

As they say: Get with the program.

I mean, you guys are still using imperial units instead of metric.

The US military has been using metric since before I was born (before 1961).

A governmental system that is mostly powerless now and is being run by a parliament which at least has some semblance of accountability to the people (like Congress). The US supreme court is still run by unelected officials who do not need experience.

As they say: Get with the program.

I mean, you guys are still using imperial units instead of metric.

So the House of Lords in mostly powerless and is not part of parliament?

And for how long was half the UK Gov't run by unelected "beings" whose only qualification was being born in the right family?
Ouch! :rolleyes:

I looked at wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

She has worked in private practice for Locke, Purnell, Raine & Harrell from 1972 until 1999, eventually becoming company President, and was George W. Bush's personal lawyer.
And this means she shouldn't become a Supreme Court Justice? Strange that you're not considering much of anything except [ in bold! ] that she "was George W. Bush's personal lawyer."

Nice apriori assumptions there. :rolleyes:

So the House of Lords in mostly powerless and is not part of parliament?

Effectively, yes. Search up the Parliament Act. It basically neutered Lords because they were so partisanly Conservative.

Effectively, yes. Search up the Parliament Act. It basically neutered Lords because they were so partisanly Conservative.

Of course, the parliament can be utterly dissolved by an utterly unelected person - the queen (or, in a few years - the king . . . an unemployed fighter pilot).

A governmental system that is mostly powerless now and is being run by a parliament which at least has some semblance of accountability to the people (like Congress). The US supreme court is still run by unelected officials who do not need experience.

As they say: Get with the program.

I mean, you guys are still using imperial units instead of metric.

That's the spirit! The metric system is what got Europe to the moon! :eek:

Of course, the parliament can be utterly dissolved by an utterly unelected person - the queen (or, in a few years - the king . . . an unemployed fighter pilot).

Legally yes I suppose she could.

If she tried?

The monarchy would be dissolved so fast Oliver Cromwell would be saying 'Slow down a bit, eh chaps?'

Well ... if push comes to shove and we see this new SCOTUS eroding away at basic civil liberties, never forget: Supreme Court Justices can be impeached.

Damn, She's ugly.

Damn, She's ugly.

So is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But we're not selecting them for their potential for sex.

Canada better pack it's bags. They won't be the freedom loving socialists on our continent for long. :mp5: :sniper:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/03/D8D0KLSG6.html

Yeah, she's a card carrying right wing thug . . . NOT

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers gave $1,000 to Democrat Al Gore's unsuccessful presidential bid in 1988 _ and 12 years later contributed to the effort to end Gore's chance of winning the White House.

In 1988, Miers, then a lawyer in private practice, donated $1,000 to Gore, the Tennessee Democrat then seeking the party's presidential nomination, according to Federal Election Commission reports. Gore eventually bowed out and Michael Dukakis secured the nomination.

Erh... hold a moment.

The US legislative branch decides who gets a seat in the judical branch?

The only thing missing for a dictatorship now is that the president gets control over the executi...

Erh...

I'm outta here!

Erh... hold a moment.

The US legislative branch decides who gets a seat in the judical branch?

The only thing missing for a dictatorship now is that the president gets control over the executi...

Erh...

I'm outta here!

Wow. An astounding ignorance of the US Constitution.

The President nominates people to the Supreme Court.

The Legislative branch (specifically, the Senate) "advises and consents". They do not appoint - they merely approve or disapprove of the President's choice.

And a President by definition is in charge of the Executive branch. Because he's the Executive.

Erh... hold a moment.

The US legislative branch decides who gets a seat in the judical branch?

The only thing missing for a dictatorship now is that the president gets control over the executi...

Erh...

I'm outta here!

President=Executive
Congress=Legislature
SCOTUS=Judiciary

It's pretty obvious what the goal was here: A SUpreme Court Justice who would make a quick call to the Oval Office before making any kind of decision. Especially if she's the swing vote.

So is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But we're not selecting them for their potential for sex.

Pity. :(


Not that I'm shallow enough to think that their potential for sex is all that matters.

But it should be a factor. :D

It's pretty obvious what the goal was here: A SUpreme Court Justice who would make a quick call to the Oval Office before making any kind of decision. Especially if she's the swing vote.

No, she doesn't need to call. She already knows what to do.

It's pretty obvious what the goal was here: A SUpreme Court Justice who would make a quick call to the Oval Office before making any kind of decision. Especially if she's the swing vote.

That was about the sum of my thoughts on the matter...

She is clean and honest - something most dems can't say !

and something every Republican can't !!!!

Of course, the parliament can be utterly dissolved by an utterly unelected person - the queen (or, in a few years - the king . . . an unemployed fighter pilot).

Actually the power of the monarch to sack the UK government was removed roughly a hundred years ago, though oddly enough retained in commonwealth nations like Australia for the govenor general to do.

and something every Republican can't !!!!

Someone here has been listening to too much Howard Dean.

I'm a republican and I'm clean and mostly honest. As is my Father, and his whole side of the family.

My mother side is mostly independent with a few dems and republicans and I have an uncle on my father's side who is a democrat.

In all,

This has been an interesting pick. The Dems weren't expecting this and it is *gasps* conservatives that are questioning her.

Someone here has been listening to too much Howard Dean.

I'm a republican and I'm clean and mostly honest. As is my Father, and his whole side of the family.

My mother side is mostly independent with a few dems and republicans and I have an uncle on my father's side who is a democrat.

It was meant to be funny. I know there are honest Republicans out there. They are like Extraterrestial Life; it is out there, we just haven't found it yet. :D

and by the way...I do not like Howard Dean

Youre kidding me?

Rhenquist?

O Connor?

None of em?

Actually, you're both wrong...

First of all, the majority of Supreme Court justices had prior judicial experience.

HOWEVER, a total of 35 justices had no prior judicial experience whatsoever, INCLUDING Chief Justice Rehnquist.

So, basically, it's not abnormal for justices to not have prior judicial experience, although the majority have.

Actually, you're both wrong...

First of all, the majority of Supreme Court justices had prior judicial experience.

HOWEVER, a total of 35 justices had no prior judicial experience whatsoever, INCLUDING Chief Justice Rehnquist.

So, basically, it's not abnormal for justices to not have prior judicial experience, although the majority have.

Actually, I'm mostly right. I said LITTLE OR NO judicial experience.

Well, shows how much I know about judicial matters...
Nonetheless, that is cronyism of the worst sort. I would actually have been happier if he had chosen Posner.
The original idea behind getting appointees like this was so that they'd have political immunity (seat on the Bench for life) so that they could rule without fear of politicking.

Unfortunately, many judges today take the immunity as a tool to abuse power.

The blogosphere is expressing reactions from "underwhelming" to "truly appalled".
Michelle Malkin's blog at http://michellemalkin.com/ is running a fun little recap of reactions. All in all, it looks like Bush has managed to piss off both conservatives and liberals with this one, although hardline conservatives seem to be taking it harder than liberals and more moderate conservatives.

Anyway, I guess it's true. He is a uniter. He's managed to get just about everyone across the spectrum pissed at him.

Also, it's fun to note, that when Republicans are calling into Rush Limbaugh's show to say, "(Bush and the GOP)...don't seem to care about their base...we fought hard to get a Republican majority...I am so dismayed," well, the ride may be over.

Bush to Pick White House Counsel Harriet Miers for Supreme Court (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171050,00.html)

She has been selected to replace Sandra Day Oconner.

Thoughts?
Funny how it's always you with the latest updates on the SCOTUS. Why do people care so much? They hardly do anything.

Funny how it's always you with the latest updates on the SCOTUS. Why do people care so much? They hardly do anything.

That's profoundly untrue. They are the final stop of legal interpretation in the United States. What they are capable of doing (or allowing to be done) is quite extensive, should there be a Court that has a definite liberal or conservative slant. Even without a defined leaning, they are capable of fundamentally changing the way US citizens live and with a huge host of hot button cases slowly working their way up to the SCOTUS, the composition of the court now many have incredibly long range implications on the direction our country takes.

Someone here has been listening to too much Howard Dean.

I'm a republican and I'm clean and mostly honest. As is my Father, and his whole side of the family.

My mother side is mostly independent with a few dems and republicans and I have an uncle on my father's side who is a democrat.
How strange that in a land of free people, you choose to place yourselves in rigid categories.

You're not a Republican, you're a supporter. It's not the same as being a party member (unless you and your family memebers party members, in which case I am wrong). Hell, I'm even a member of a political party, yet consider myself ideologically independent.

So is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But we're not selecting them for their potential for sex.

Perhaps not, but if you listen to lots of conservatives at the moment, we're selecting her just FOR her sex.

How strange that in a land of free people, you choose to place yourselves in rigid categories.

You're not a Republican, you're a supporter. It's not the same as being a party member (unless you and your family memebers party members, in which case I am wrong). Hell, I'm even a member of a political party, yet consider myself ideologically independent.
Bolded for truth.

People who had ZERO experience on the Bench (from 1949)

Clark
Warren
B.R. White
Goldberg
Fortas
Powell
Rehnquist

For a complete list, The Judicial Process By Henry J. Abraham, Table 2 pgs 58-60.

I do have the complete list here in front of me of those that have little to none bench experience.

Corneliu, do you happen to know the percentages? How many with experience versus those without? I'm just curious - I know next to nothing about the SCotUS. I'm personally surprised to hear that people without judicial experience are named.

Next someone will show me that Canada chooses non-judges for our Supreme Court too... But it still seems weird to me that the highest court of the land would have members without judicial experience. <shrug>

Seems like another round of Joe Albaugh and Michael Brown to me.

The Dems weren't expecting this
Apparently, one Dem was. She was named as a canadate that the Dems could back by Senator Reid to President Bush.

It is a known fact that most of the Supreme Court either had little OR NO judicial experience on the bench.
What. The. Fuck?

You put people with no experience or track record in charge of the most important court in the land?

I would expect it of Congress (after all, it happens everywhere...people with little or no experience can get elected on a single issue), but in the Supreme Court?

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was complimentary, issuing a statement that said he likes Miers and adding "the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."

At the same time, he said he looked forward to the "process, which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court."

Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, according to several sources familiar with the president's consultations with individual senators. Of equal importance as the White House maps its confirmation campaign is that the Nevada Democrat had warned Bush that the selection of any of several other contenders could trigger a bruising partisan struggle.

When delegates to a national American Bar Association convention adopted a position in favor of abortion rights in 1992, she worked as head of the Texas state bar to force a reconsideration of the issue by submitting it to a referendum by the 360,000-membership. "This issue has brought on tremendous divisiveness and loss of membership..." she said in early 1993.

Abortion rights don't matter all that much to me. What is important is where she stands on the constatution and equal rights. it does help that Reid recommended her.


Regards,

JMayo

Well I listened to conservatives on radio for as long as I could untill my ears started to bleed ...the pro lifers want blood ...hehehehe they insist on having Attila the Hun nominated ..they want a PROVEN conservative like Judge Dagnabit AKA "the hanging Judge " etc. The left said if Bush picked her she's Satans disciple...and the really left said she's an evangelical Christian BURN HER . The truly loony right wing screamers called for Bush to be nailed to a cross for his sins .And then some dude called and "Bush lied babys died " and I heard sirens and a struggle and then the phone call was cut off. Its been a real crazy day. Who is this women anyway ?

What. The. Fuck?

You put people with no experience or track record in charge of the most important court in the land?

I would expect it of Congress (after all, it happens everywhere...people with little or no experience can get elected on a single issue), but in the Supreme Court?

Chief Justice Renquist didn't have any Judicial experience when he was appointed as an associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Neither did Fortas (though he relunctently took the job as a justice).

I have several names on here have have zero experience at the federal level as well as several with little at the state level as well as at the federal level.

Well I listened to conservatives on radio for as long as I could untill my ears started to bleed ...the pro lifers want blood ...hehehehe they insist on having Attila the Hun nominated ..they want a PROVEN conservative like Judge Dagnabit AKA "the hanging Judge " etc. The left said if Bush picked her she's Satans disciple...and the really left said she's an evangelical Christian BURN HER . The truly loony right wing screamers called for Bush to be nailed to a cross for his sins .And then some dude called and "Bush lied babys died " and I heard sirens and a struggle and then the phone call was cut off. Its been a real crazy day. Who is this women anyway ?

Head of the White House Council which I believe is the President's lawyers.

Chief Justice Renquist didn't have any Judicial experience when he was appointed as an associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Neither did Fortas (though he relunctently took the job as a justice).

I have several names on here have have zero experience at the federal level as well as several with little at the state level as well as at the federal level.
That's incredible.

And not in a good way.

That's incredible.

And not in a good way.

To a point, I will agree with you but on the other hand, there is no Constitutional requirement to be a Supreme Court Nominee.

Even I can be a Supreme Court Justice according to the Constitution.

To a point, I will agree with you but on the other hand, there is no Constitutional requirement to be a Supreme Court Nominee.

Even I can be a Supreme Court Justice according to the Constitution.
Yea, but I just can't imagine it being a good thing that some members of the supreme judicial body, with an awful lot of power, have absolutely no experience in the field.

1970—Graduated from Southern Methodist University Law School
1970-1972—Clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Joe Estes
1972-2001—Joined Texas law firm, Locke, Purnell
1985—Elected president of the Dallas Bar Association
1986-1989—Member of the State Bar board of directors
1989-1991—Elected and served one term on the Dallas City Council
1992—Elected president of the Texas State Bar
1993-1994—Worked as counsel for Bush's gubernatorial campaign
1995-2000—Appointed chairwoman of Texas Lottery Commission by Gov. George Bush
1996—Became president of Locke, Purnell, and the first woman to lead a major Texas law firm
1998—Presided over the merger of Locke, Purnell with another big Texas firm, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, and became co-managing partner of the resulting megafirm, Locke Liddell & Sapp
2000—Represented Bush and Cheney in a lawsuit stemming from their dual residency in Texas while running in the Presidential primary
2001—Selected as staff secretary for President Bush
2003—Promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
2004—Selected as White House Counsel


not much out there on her.


Regards,

JMayo

It's pretty obvious what the goal was here: A SUpreme Court Justice who would make a quick call to the Oval Office before making any kind of decision. Especially if she's the swing vote.
Lacking an "insider's" knowledge, I don't know this for a fact, but I seriously doubt that any Supreme Court Justice, selected to serve for the remainder of their life, really gives a flyin' frack what any President has to say about almost anything. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court of FDR's terms fought him tooth and nail over his "New Deal" legislation, which they ruled was unconstitutional. And FDR was one of the most popular Presidents the US ever had.

Lacking an "insider's" knowledge, I don't know this for a fact, but I seriously doubt that any Supreme Court Justice, selected to serve for the remainder of their life, really gives a flyin' frack what any President has to say about almost anything.

Actually, L.G. may not be far off. David Frum of the National Review had this to say about her:

"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."

David Frum's say on Miers (http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/09292005.asp#077899)

1970—Graduated from Southern Methodist University Law School
1970-1972—Clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Joe Estes
1972-2001—Joined Texas law firm, Locke, Purnell
1985—Elected president of the Dallas Bar Association
1986-1989—Member of the State Bar board of directors
1989-1991—Elected and served one term on the Dallas City Council
1992—Elected president of the Texas State Bar
1993-1994—Worked as counsel for Bush's gubernatorial campaign
1995-2000—Appointed chairwoman of Texas Lottery Commission by Gov. George Bush
1996—Became president of Locke, Purnell, and the first woman to lead a major Texas law firm
1998—Presided over the merger of Locke, Purnell with another big Texas firm, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, and became co-managing partner of the resulting megafirm, Locke Liddell & Sapp
2000—Represented Bush and Cheney in a lawsuit stemming from their dual residency in Texas while running in the Presidential primary
2001—Selected as staff secretary for President Bush
2003—Promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
2004—Selected as White House Counsel


not much out there on her.
As a former Personnel Manager for Exxon, I would have to say that's a pretty impressive resume, particularly the entries I have placed in bold type. Lawyers do not elect their fellow lawyers to head up either their Bar associations or to head up major law firms unless they have a great deal on the ball.

As a former Personnel Manager for Exxon, I would have to say that's a pretty impressive resume, particularly the entries I have placed in bold type. Lawyers do not elect their fellow lawyers to head up either their Bar associations or to head up major law firms unless they have a great deal on the ball.

It seems the big gripe about Miers is that she's just not hard-line conservative enough (or at least known to be hard-line conservative) to please the Bush support base. Many conservatives are starting to feel that Bush cronyism has robbed them of real advances they could have made and this is the straw that's breaking lots of backs. She's not particularly unqualified, given the resume of other SCOTUS justices, but she's not the message a lot of people wanted to hear.

It seems the big gripe about Miers is that she's just not hard-line conservative enough (or at least known to be hard-line conservative) to please the Bush support base. Many conservatives are starting to feel that Bush cronyism has robbed them of real advances they could have made and this is the straw that's breaking lots of backs. She's not particularly unqualified, given the resume of other SCOTUS justices, but she's not the message a lot of people wanted to hear.

I agree with you BerkylvaniaYetAgain

I actually agree with this pick because she is qualified to do the job. I'm one of those that believes in having the right person for the job over ideology. She seems to be a decent pick. We'll just have to see how the confirmation hearings go.

My take?

First: What are the odds of GW appointing a person to a job that they are unqualified for?

I mean *cough Brown cough* really? What are the odds?


Other than that?

What should I feel about a person who, when leading a law firm was TWICE forced to pay fines for "aiding a client in defrausing investors"? Once paying fines to the tune of $22Million, the other for $8 million? And what does that say about her honesty?

What should I feel about the person who, in 2000, was retained by Bush to investigate and release all of his military records in response to a court order and supposedly did so, until of course those other documents showed up just in the nick of time when the swift boat affair was underway?

How comfortable should I be with the person who, operating as deputy chief of staff this summer, was orchestrating the White House response to the Rove/ Libby involvement in the Plame affair?

Or who gave the official White House opinions on the legality of the use of torture when defining the legal parameters on the war on terror?

And how much should her lack of experience in arguing Constitutional law play a part in my opinion?


Frankly, it seems to me that this is just the biggest example yet of GW rewarding corporate cronies with jobs. Only this time it's a lifetime appointment to shape the future of the country.

And that does NOT make me terribly comfortable at all.

I agree with you BerkylvaniaYetAgain


And doesn't THAT just freak my shit out.

And doesn't THAT just freak my shit out.

I nearly had a heart attack typing that out :D

So the House of Lords in mostly powerless and is not part of parliament?

I was thinking more in lines of the royal family.

The US military has been using metric since before I was born (before 1961).

And generic use is still imperial isn't it? Feet, yards, gallons, bushels, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, the people elected both the Presdent and congress, right? They elected a conservative congress and a conservative president, right? So...doesnt the president have the right to pick whoever he wants as long as that person passes through Congress? Doesn't that mean the people have given the President the right/obligation to nominate a conservative, since they should be representative of the majority, the same majority who elected the congress and President? Just a thought. Now for bed...

I know who she is . I want to know who she is ..what makes her tick..why never married ? Would the fact that she is evangelical carry over to her opinion on constitutional matters that do not coincide with her religion etc. etc. etc.?

I am in favor of a fractouse supreme court .. ( I cant bear to use SCOTUS..it reminds me too much of "nut sack " ) Its more representative of the United States that way and limits the chances a large minority or even the majority will get truly screwed blued and tattood by the decisions . Its nice to have a mix of opinions , these are men not Gods , compromise and mitigated decisions IMO among a diverse group of justices is good for America and I feel more representative of what America stands for .

Following is something I posted at Confirmthem.com. Many of the posters there have similar sentiments on the Meiers pick:

I am one of those hapless “values voters” that gave Bush his victories in ‘02 and ‘04. I voted for him for many reasons, but the main one, I have to admit, was SCOTUS.

That promise, to appoint justices in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, MEANS something. Supposedly he is a man of his word. He already broke it with Roberts - he’s definitely no Thomas or Scalia, could be in the mold of a Rehnquist, but, from what I’ve seen, is probably slightly left of Rehnquist. With Meiers views unknown, for all we know, what we’ve gotten at this historic moment is - exactly the court we had before SOC and Rehnquist left, maybe even more liberal.

Meiers is CERTAINLY no Scalia or Thomas. Even if she voted lockstep with them for her entire term in office, Bush has essentially ceded the moral high ground of judging SCOTUS nominees on their merits rather than their ideals with this nominee, and her rulings would be suspect, subject to being overridden by future courts.

This is a SEVERE political miscalculation. If he’d picked JRB, Luttig, Alito, Williams, Jones, he might have had a long filibuster fight on his hands, but he would have energized his base - improving election chances in ‘06 and ‘08.
Instead he chose the wimp route.

It sounds to me like he’s throwing a fit because conservatives didn’t want his buddy Al Gonzales, so is sticking it to them with Meiers. If so, I am very disappointed. I have been an ardent supporter of his up to now.

Many folks here seem to think this is either/or - either we just accept Bush’s pick silently, or lose the nomination completely. I don’t see any reason why we can’t defeat this nominee and force him to nominate somebody with more credentials. There are plenty of reasons to reject the nominee besides her unknown conservative credentials.

And here's a quote from John Cornyn, Senator, Texas, that is quite disturbing to conservatives:

I would ask everyone not to prejudge the nominee," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, about 90 minutes after Bush revealed his choice. Cornyn has been a stalwart defender of Bush's judicial nominees. "I would ask everyone to take a deep breath, to look at her background and qualifications and to give her a chance before the Judiciary Committee."

Cornyn added, "She's obviously not a Scalia or a Thomas.

May the flying sphagetti monster save us from the radicals from both sides .

May the flying sphagetti monster save us from the radicals from both sides .

I agree with you Beer and Guns. Even I didn't want another Scalia or Thomas.

The court should be about merit and not ideology. I give credit for Bush for going on merit and for appointing a woman too.

Chief Justice Renquist didn't have any Judicial experience when he was appointed as an associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Neither did Fortas (though he relunctently took the job as a justice).

I have several names on here have have zero experience at the federal level as well as several with little at the state level as well as at the federal level.Neither did Earl Warren when Eisenhower appointed him. Isn't it interesting that arguably the most liberal and more conservative Supreme Court Chief Justices in modern times had no judicial experience when they joined the Court?

As to Miers, well, it's been interesting watching the nuttier segments of the right blogosphere have conniptions today over her because she's not ideologically pure enough for them. And I heard a rumor that Bush called Harry Reid and basically asked who he could get through without a fractious battle in the Senate, and Miers came up--sort of like what Clinton did with Hatch over Ginsberg and Breyer.

I'm starting to think that the worst thing that could have happened to the wingnut community was for this to happen in Bush's second term, when he doesn't stand to gain anything from appeasing them. Their thought was that now that he doesn't have to get re-elected, he can stand up for them and pay them back--looks like he hung them out to dry instead. Maybe if he'd needed them for another election, he'd have hung in there and kissed a little ass.

Just thought I'd post this, 'cause I thought it was cute..

http://harrietmiers.blogspot.com/

Apologies in advance. :)

Some one is on TODAY talking obviously some paid propaganda bullshit about Miers, but he does ensure us that Miers will be an idealogue and will make sure to overturn all progressive legislation made in the last 30 years and enforce the neocon agenda of "not legislating from the bench" on things they disagree with.

Some one is on TODAY talking obviously some paid propaganda bullshit about Miers, but he does ensure us that Miers will be an idealogue and will make sure to overturn all progressive legislation made in the last 30 years and enforce the neocon agenda of "not legislating from the bench" on things they disagree with.

We'll just have to wait and see. You never know about these things. I have a feeling that we have a stealth candidate on our hands.

Liberals won't vote for conservatives with a judicial record so engrained is their bigotry and prejudice against the religious and those that have standards about right and wrong. Had Bush nominated some person with views that agreed with the Leahy/Schumer/Kennedy lunacy I'm sure we'd be hearing reports of about how he's grown in office and was softening his hard right stance.

He is a moderate politically in the US and people that don't know that are out of touch or hopelessly radical. ;)

We'll just have to wait and see. You never know about these things. I have a feeling that we have a stealth candidate on our hands.
Stealth candidate how? When the White House is doing damage control to assure their base that Miers is an idealogue, I think it is quite clear what kind of candidate we have on our hands.

Okay, maybe you can help me understand this:

The President appoints judges for the SCOTUS. Anyone could be appointed - even Corneliu.
Those people then rule on important court cases, when one side claims that the constitution is being violated.
Those rulings then mean that certain things can be allowed, or disallowed - if that fits the constitution.
Correct?

So, what is the problem with having a "liberal" supreme court? The Democrats aren't trying to force anything on anyone, are they?
Their agenda on the likely hot topics like gay marriage and abortion is to let people do what they want. How is that a bad thing? The SCOTUS can allow people to be a gay married couple, or allow a mother to abort her child - but it can't make anyone do anything, can it?

So when right-wingers (most of them aren't fundamentalist nutcases I have been led to believe) say they don't want to see a "liberal" SCOTUS - doesn't that mean they only want to prevent people from having rights to do stuff?

What are the issues that concern non-fundi right-wingers when they want a republican rather than a democratic court?

I hadnt realized a full 40% of SC Justices have had little, or no actual experience on the bench.
It seems both sides, Dems, and Rep presidents have been doing this for years, and frankly, I dont like it.
Just becuase you were Bush's lawyer, does not mean you are qualified to sit on the bench, and interperet the law, in the highest court of the land, the crux of the American judicial system.

While I cant accuse Bush of being the only President to do this, this action is a simple one.
He didnt choose her becuase she's the most qualified candidate for the job.
She was chosen becuase shes predictable, and will have a decidedly Conservative "bias", if you will, when interpereting the law.
As was Rhenquists replacement.

My biggest fear is that there is an ulterior motive behind this.
Im afraid this is a preparation for the overturning of Roe V Wade.
Set up a panel of hardcore conservative judges, and then roll the issue before them.
Bang!
Roe V Wade is overturned, and abortion is illegalized in America.

I would really like to think that even the NeoCons wouldnt do this, but at this point, no matter what side of the political fence you sit on, no one can really put anything past this administration anymore, can we?

For a Supreme Court Pick, it actually IS the norm. It is a known fact that most of the Supreme Court either had little OR NO judicial experience on the bench.
You really have to admire the conservative mind. Anything that was once done, no matter how essentially illogical, atavistic, or anachronistic, is good. If naming someone who was never a judge to the supreme court was the norm, isn't that something that we can improve upon?

I sometimes think what the 'founding fathers' would have used for toilet paper. I wonder if the conservatives would like to reintroduce the oak leaf for that purpose.

I would really like to think that even the NeoCons wouldnt do this, but at this point, no matter what side of the political fence you sit on, no one can really put anything past this administration anymore, can we?
Are you kiddings? The neocons have been trying to roll that for years.

You really have to admire the conservative mind. Anything that was once done, no matter how essentially illogical, atavistic, or anachronistic, is good. If naming someone who was never a judge to the supreme court was the norm, isn't that something that we can improve upon?

1. Point out where I said it was a good thing?
2. In answer to your question, yes.

I sometimes think what the 'founding fathers' would have used for toilet paper. I wonder if the conservatives would like to reintroduce the oak leaf for that purpose.

And here is a good example of Partisan hackery.

This might interest some (dated 12-15-2004)
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1102944936042

And here is a good example of Partisan hackery.
Conservativism:
One of the major intellectual and political philosophies of modern times, conservatism refers to political philosophies, ideologies, and political movements in opposition to change. Some conservatives favour the status quo. Many conservatives, however, look back to a golden age, and favour a return to what they see as a better way of life. All conservatives would reject the premise, "change for its own sake."
Note that he didn't say Republican either. :p

Give Bush a break. People with knowledge, expertise and practical ability kind of make him nervous. It's an insecurity thing. People who are expert in stuff usually tell him that he is wrong. Sometimes they roll their eyes when he says something stupid. And that's just hurtful.

Are you kiddings? The neocons have been trying to roll that for years.


So why doesnt this scare the Holy Green Crap outta anyone but me?

So why doesnt this scare the Holy Green Crap outta anyone but me?
Alot of people support it.

Actually, you're both wrong...

First of all, the majority of Supreme Court justices had prior judicial experience.

HOWEVER, a total of 35 justices had no prior judicial experience whatsoever, INCLUDING Chief Justice Rehnquist.

So, basically, it's not abnormal for justices to not have prior judicial experience, although the majority have.


Yes, but Rhenquist at least served as a clerk to Justice Jackson and as Assistant AG before getting the nod, and served years as a SCOTUS justice before getting promoted to the top chair.

Which means that he at least had prior experience with Constitutional law.



Here's a question for people who believe in strict Constitutional constructionism:

The Founding Fathers were very clear in their collective writings on the need for seperation and independance between the three branches of government.

So can anyone name ONE other appointment to SCOTUS where the appointee:

a) had no prior experience on the bench
and
b) had no prior experience in Constitutional Law - either practicing or teaching.
and
c) was the PERSONAL attorney for the sitting president who appointed them?


You may find some people who satisfied a) OR b), but I think you may have difficulty finding anyone who failed on BOTH. And c) is right out there from the history of SCOTUS.


I'm not going to argue this woman's wealth of knowledge of corporate law, or try to guess just how conservative or not she is. Although I WOULD throw out the sidebar that more cases brought to the Supreme Court decide issues of criminal law rather than corporate.


I'm just saying that sitting on that bench is NOT supposed to be the place where you first get your feet wet with Constitutional jurisprudence.

Am I the only one who is starting to see visions of 9 people following me around judging my every move to see if it meets their moral standards ?

Could it just be the mushrooms ? The make up of this court is starting to remind me of the dark ages . Will witch burnings be next in vogue ?

Am I the only one who is starting to see visions of 9 people following me around judging my every move to see if it meets their moral standards ?

Could it just be the mushrooms ? The make up of this court is starting to remind me of the dark ages . Will witch burnings be next in vogue ?
I am about to win, give me time to finish editing this picture.

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/8606/supremecourt3dj.th.jpg (http://img38.imageshack.us/my.php?image=supremecourt3dj.jpg)
^^Click me

My take?

First: What are the odds of GW appointing a person to a job that they are unqualified for?

I mean *cough Brown cough* really? What are the odds?


Other than that?

What should I feel about a person who, when leading a law firm was TWICE forced to pay fines for "aiding a client in defrausing investors"? Once paying fines to the tune of $22Million, the other for $8 million? And what does that say about her honesty?

What should I feel about the person who, in 2000, was retained by Bush to investigate and release all of his military records in response to a court order and supposedly did so, until of course those other documents showed up just in the nick of time when the swift boat affair was underway?

How comfortable should I be with the person who, operating as deputy chief of staff this summer, was orchestrating the White House response to the Rove/ Libby involvement in the Plame affair?

Or who gave the official White House opinions on the legality of the use of torture when defining the legal parameters on the war on terror?

And how much should her lack of experience in arguing Constitutional law play a part in my opinion?


Frankly, it seems to me that this is just the biggest example yet of GW rewarding corporate cronies with jobs. Only this time it's a lifetime appointment to shape the future of the country.

And that does NOT make me terribly comfortable at all.

Oh, so she does have some bones in her closet.. hmm odd that I'm the only one who responded to this persons post? Perhaps willful blindness?

The name doesn't ring a bell. Sorry. :(

Oh, so she does have some bones in her closet.. hmm odd that I'm the only one who responded to this persons post? Perhaps willful blindness?

Of course she has bones in her closet. Who doesn't? Lawks, the woman even said that George W. Bush was the smartest man she ever met. Either she needs to get out more or she's set her bar fantastically low.

The interesting thing here is not Miers background (which is probably a sad comment on the state of US politics and such), but how much tension her nomination is going to introduce into the Conservative support base and if she's going to be the straw that breaks the elephant's back.

The interesting thing here is not Miers background (which is probably a sad comment on the state of US politics and such), but how much tension her nomination is going to introduce into the Conservative support base and if she's going to be the straw that breaks the elephant's back.
In his public address, George W. Bush assured teh nation that both Roberts and Miers will give the nation decades of neocon idealogical rulings. Thank God :rolleyes:

In his public address, George W. Bush assured teh nation that both Roberts and Miers will give the nation decades of neocon idealogical rulings. Thank God :rolleyes:

Yes, well, Cheney basically did the same thing on Rush Limbaugh's show the other day, but Rush's listeners weren't buying it.

It's perfectly possible that once they get ensconced in the SCOTUS they'll both turn into conservatives so rabid that they make Scalia look like a hippie, but they're going to have to in order to save Bush's bacon. It's going to have to be draconian.

There's also something vaguely troubling about this, "Trust us, they're hard-line conservatives, but they're not admitting to it until they get into office" tone the White House seems to be taking.

You really do have the most corrupt system don't you :eek:

Really. I'm shocked by this. In the UK our high courts (we have no direct equivalent to the Supreme Court) are stocked with senior judges. You can't be a Law Lord without having been a judge in the other 3 courts.

In the US you don't even need legal training!

Only in America!

Where you can be placed in charge of managing national disasters with no experience other than breeding horses, anyone can be a Supreme Court Justice!

Hey this could be France , they seem to have set the ....ummm..." bar " for judges a bit low.

Bordeaux, France - A French magistrate caught masturbating during a court session was locked up on Thursday and put under investigation, justice officials in the south-western city of Bordeaux said. …

According to La Charente Libre, a local newspaper who had a reporter in court at the time of the alleged offence, the magistrate had discreetly lifted up his ceremonial robe while a lawyer was presenting final arguments, undid his pants and “engaged in gestures that left nothing to the imagination”. - Sapa-AFP



The head judge of the city's appeals court said "a penal inquiry ordered by the prosecutor of the republic is currently being carried out by the police" while a request for a psychiatric evaluation of the magistrate - who was not named - had been made.


http://www.legalreader.com/archives/001394.html

:p :D

A French magistrate caught masturbating during a court session was locked up on Thursday and put under investigation, justice officials in the south-western city of Bordeaux
Hey, it's the country of love...what do you expect?
I'm sure he was perfectly capable of listening to the defendant and attending to...business all at the same time.
Nonetheless, provided that he could still be listening to the trial (which is the issue at stake here), he's still a qualified judge, with a curious interpretation of court etiquette.
This lady has never been a judge, and now she's supposed to occupy the swing seat in the most powerful court in your country. It suprises me that Americans seem to be the ones least worried about this cronyism...wouldn't it affect you the most?

well Bush has known her for a while and ,it may just be that she's a ; " if I ever become president I will nominate you for the supreme court you are that good " type of thing . :eek: Good = smart and just and fit to be a supreme court justice..not neccessarily good at other things... :fluffle:

And at any rate if she truly is a fine legal mind and a fine " judge " of the constitution , then its not cronyism is it ?

I just think he's rewarding a lifetime friend and confidant . I do not know enough about her to know if its a good or bad thing. I do know enough to worry .

The head judge of the city's appeals court said "a penal inquiry ordered by the prosecutor of the republic is currently being carried out by the police" while a request for a psychiatric evaluation of the magistrate - who was not named - had been made.

I especially loved the part that I bolded. :D

I agree with you Beer and Guns. Even I didn't want another Scalia or Thomas.

The court should be about merit and not ideology. I give credit for Bush for going on merit and for appointing a woman too.
Going on merit? How so?

There are plenty of folks with right of center to far right with much better qualifications than her.

I don't give credit to Bush, because he promised a Scalia or Thomas. Instead, he gave us his crony.

He picked her because a) she's a woman, and b) she's his friend. Not what I'd call the best criterion for nominating a Supreme Court Justice.

I'm starting to think that the worst thing that could have happened to the wingnut community was for this to happen in Bush's second term, when he doesn't stand to gain anything from appeasing them. Their thought was that now that he doesn't have to get re-elected, he can stand up for them and pay them back--looks like he hung them out to dry instead. Maybe if he'd needed them for another election, he'd have hung in there and kissed a little ass.
I hate to say it, but this wingnut agrees with your analysis.

There are plenty of folks with right of center to far right with much better qualifications than her.

Your right there are!

I don't give credit to Bush, because he promised a Scalia or Thomas. Instead, he gave us his crony.

Where? He said he'd appoint someone that would follow the Constitution. Where did he promise another Scalia or Thomas?

He picked her because a) she's a woman, and b) she's his friend. Not what I'd call the best criterion for nominating a Supreme Court Justice.

Actually, I disagree. From what I'm seeing she's a great lawyer.

We'll just have to wait and see. You never know about these things. I have a feeling that we have a stealth candidate on our hands.
Cornelieu, the point is, we didn't need to have a stealth candidate. There would have been a fight for a more documented conservative, sure, but that would only energize the conservative base - which is the strategy that got Bush elected in the first place.

If Bush is afraid to put an avowed, qualified conservative up as a nominee to SCOTUS when the Repubs have the WH and both houses of Congress, when can one be put up?

This just sends the message to any conservative Circuit of Appeals justices to keep their mouths shut and avoid any controversial rulings. Not the legacy I'd like to leave as POTUS.

Your right there are!



Where? He said he'd appoint someone that would follow the Constitution. Where did he promise another Scalia or Thomas?



Actually, I disagree. From what I'm seeing she's a great lawyer.
Quoted all over the media, Bush explicitly promised to nominate judges to SCOTUS "in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas".

John Cornyn, my distinguished Senator from Texas, has already explicitly stated she is not. Why would he say that? Doe that mean she doesn't have the intellectual heft of a Scalia or Thomas, or does that mean her philosphy is more liberal than theirs? Either one is embarassing.

Your right there are!



Where? He said he'd appoint someone that would follow the Constitution. Where did he promise another Scalia or Thomas?



Actually, I disagree. From what I'm seeing she's a great lawyer.
Sounds like she has been a great lawyer. But, she's never argued a single case in the Circuit Court of Appeals or SCOTUS. She has virtually no experience in constitutional law. She is best known for her work in business law.

Your right there are!


So you agree that there are more qualified candidates. Why were they not nominated?

Hey, it's the country of love...what do you expect?
I'm sure he was perfectly capable of listening to the defendant and attending to...business all at the same time.
Nonetheless, provided that he could still be listening to the trial (which is the issue at stake here), he's still a qualified judge, with a curious interpretation of court etiquette.
This lady has never been a judge, and now she's supposed to occupy the swing seat in the most powerful court in your country. It suprises me that Americans seem to be the ones least worried about this cronyism...wouldn't it affect you the most?
Au contraire, many PREVIOUS supporters of Bush are very worried about cronyism in this case. They just don't get the press that the Bush PR machine is getting.

I sometimes think what the 'founding fathers' would have used for toilet paper. I wonder if the conservatives would like to reintroduce the oak leaf for that purpose.
*cookie*

Au contraire, many PREVIOUS supporters of Bush...
Are you one?
Maybe you can tell me then what exactly the issues are you want the SCOTUS to worry about, and which way you'd want them decided?

So you agree that there are more qualified candidates. Why were they not nominated?

Because we don't need an Ideologue. Don't you understand that?

Because we don't need an Ideologue. Don't you understand that?


If having "an idealogue" means having qualified individuals presiding cases in the SC, then I guess Im all for it.

This woman was chosen becuase shes politically conservative , and will rule favorably for the conservative agenda.

Dont you understand that?

Actually, I disagree. From what I'm seeing she's a great lawyer.
Yeah, a big business lawyer. Where is her experience in arguing Constitutional law?


Because we don't need an Ideologue. Don't you understand that?
You are kidding right? You think she isn't an idealogue?

Everyone move along, nothing to see here.

If having "an idealogue" means having qualified individuals presiding cases in the SC, then I guess Im all for it.

This woman was chosen becuase shes politically conservative , and will rule favorably for the conservative agenda.

Dont you understand that?

Care to prove that she will rule favorably for the conservative Agenda?

Care to prove that she will rule favorably for the conservative Agenda?
I figured Bush selecting her would do just fine. If that doesn't do it for you, how about the call into Limbaugh's show by Dick Cheney assuring us that she will and the public address by the president assuring the nation she will?

Which reminds me, could you give me a full list of all justices without bench experience.

I figured Bush selecting her would do just fine. If that doesn't do it for you, how about the call into Limbaugh's show by Dick Cheney assuring us that she will and the public address by the president assuring the nation she will?

Which reminds me, could you give me a full list of all justices without bench experience.

I would but the book I am using is currently in my bookbag and I don't feel like digging it out. This afternoon though I will do it when I'm done with all of my classes. Unless someone beats me to the punch first.

The problem is there is very little to go on , as to how she would rule on anything. The conservatives are going batty because they feel " owed " for the " battle" they fought and won over 40 years and wanted a proven conservative nominated. This nominee was picked over many , seemingly more qualified conservatives . I am baffled as to how an " Evangelical" can make impartial rulings or rulings based on the " merits " of a case . It just doesnt seem to go with the " Evangelical " part . There also were other women on the list of potential nominees. This one seems to fall short when you think of " supreme " when compared to other possible candidates .
The Conservative movement looked at Bush's second term as the term that would set the Supreme court moving in the " right " direction . My concern is that the right direction may mean less " rights " for Americans . These are the fellows that think the Patriot act is the bees knees after all . I hate to think of being terrorized by my own government to fight terrorism but while other people worry about killing babys or safe borders , I worry about law enforcement using the precidents set from using the Patriot act . When do common criminals become " terrorist " ? When does dissent become a incitement to terrorism ? And other parinoid thoughts that wander through my mellon . We did after all put our own citizens in concentration camps before for being Japenese . So its not like we have not done some odd things in the name of "National Security" .

I figure we'll get the results we want out of Miers, if we can get her confirmed. Something tells me, though, that we could've done just as well with a candidate the press would've heaped praise on, instead of questioned. Then again, wading the sewage of identity politics is something I won't do, so I never really bothered to look at the other potential nominees.

It really is interesting to watch this unfold. Were I in the Senate, I certainly wouldn't vote to accept her, largely because she's a Bush appointee and in my opinion, his track record with appointees has thus far been disastrous, and unlike Cabinet-level officials, Supreme Court Justices don't serve at the leisure of the President. If one of my colleagues were to filibuster her because of some reasonable objection, I'd probably vote to uphold it, at least for now. I probably wouldn't lead a filibuster, however.

As a liberal, I'm taking my lumps right now--elections have consequences, and this is one of them. I'm not taking it lying down, mind you--if Miers really is a Scalia-Thomas clone, as Bush promised, then I'd filibuster her until 2008. Of course, I'd filibuster both Scalia and Thomas right now, given the option (which I don't have, obviously).

Oh, and you can add another movement conservative to the list of pissed off people. George Will is livid. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954_pf.html)It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.

I figure we'll get the results we want out of Miers, if we can get her confirmed.
And what are those???

And what are those???

Wouldn't you like to know.. ;) Muahaha..

I'm already pissed at Roberts, though.. for taking those nifty gold stripes off his robe.. I guess he doesn't wanna look so ostentatious, being the new guy and all, but you gotta have style, so I don't forgive him just yet..

". . . All conservatives would reject the premise, "change for its own sake."

"Change is the illusion of progress."

"Change is the illusion of progress."
I would say that change is the creator of progress. Without change, there could be no progress.

Here's the score on SC justices (by my count):

106 total
42 were non-judges (including 5 chief justices)
37 served on state/local courts only
12 were non-lawyers
6 were both non-judges and non-lawyers (including Chief Justice Marshall)
Republicans have nominated 8 democrats
Democrats have nominated 3 republicans

Care to prove that she will rule favorably for the conservative Agenda?


Well, lets see:

Republican, right?

Conservative Republican as well right?

Former White House Council?

The woman has already been working for the Bush Administration, she's a NeoCon, just like Rice, Rummy, Bush, Cheney, etc.

If by this, you mean "Theres no guarantee that she will vote any way, as no one can do much, when and if she is appointed."

But you and I both know this isnt true.

How can you deny that in all likelyhood, she was nominated becuase she will have political interpetations of the law, that Bush and Co, will approve of ?
Why else does a president appoint someone who isnt qualified to be a judge on the SC?
This woman not only has no experience in the SC, or State courts, she has no judicial experience at all.
There are many, far more qualifed candidates to choose from.
However, there arent many that Bush is intimately associated with, and whos political leanings are known fully.

This, like Rhenquists replacement, was an attempt to appoint a couple more Conservative Judges, to the SCOTUS.

This, like Rhenquists replacement, was an attempt to appoint a couple more Conservative Judges, to the SCOTUS.
Roberts is already making Rehnquist look moderate, and we havn't even hit hot button issues yet.

If Roberts is a strict constructionist as hyped , why is he seemingly going against the will of a state government ? Why the ***# cant the government keep its nose in ...say running the government and out of privacy issues ?
If some one has decided to stop fighting their terminal cancer and wants to die with some dignity , why do these assholes think they have the right to interfere ?

If Roberts is a strict constructionist as hyped , why is he seemingly going against the will of a state government ? Why the ***# cant the government keep its nose in ...say running the government and out of privacy issues ?
If some one has decided to stop fighting their terminal cancer and wants to die with some dignity , why do these assholes think they have the right to interfere ?
If Roberts is a constructionist, Ginsburg is a neocon. He is not so much constructionist as he is a Bush White House sycophant.

Roberts is already making Rehnquist look moderate, and we havn't even hit hot button issues yet.

Proof please?

Proof please?
Don't confuse him. He wouldn't know the truth if it kicked him in the ass! :p

Roberts is already making Rehnquist look moderate, and we havn't even hit hot button issues yet.

OK, I'll bite. Name the moderates on the Court.

[QUOTE]
OK, I'll bite. Name the moderates on the Court.
Depends on your point of view. From my perch on the American left/far left, I'd say the moderates were Kennedy (just barely), Stevens and Souter. Ginsberg and Breyer would pass for liberal in the US, and Scalia and Thomas are strongly conservative. Roberts we don't know anything about yet, but my guess is that he falls somewhere between Kennedy and Scalia, with Thomas being the outlier to the right.

OK, I'll bite. Name the moderates on the Court.
Kennedy, previously O'Conner

Proof please?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051006/pl_usatoday/justicesweighassistedsuicide;_ylt=Avq6EKtXnYwNvI.Sn.cMeBJMEP0E;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Rehnquist was at least interested in state's right. Roberts is interested in the Bush White House agenda.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_assisted_suicide;_ylt=AmaZFlhgK9SB1uUGrFX7b5tMEP0E;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
"If one state can say it's legal for doctors to prescribe morphine to make people feel better, or to prescribe steroids for bodybuilding, doesn't that undermine the uniformity of the federal law and make enforcement impossible?
Don't doctors do that already, well not steroids specifically for bodybuilding unless there could possibly be a medical reason I don't perceive.

Here's the score on SC justices (by my count):

106 total
42 were non-judges (including 5 chief justices)
37 served on state/local courts only
12 were non-lawyers
6 were both non-judges and non-lawyers (including Chief Justice Marshall)
Republicans have nominated 8 democrats
Democrats have nominated 3 republicans


Boy, you have to go WWAAAAAAAY back to get to chief justice Marshall, who - incidentally - you are incorrect about as he studied under the tutelage of jurist George Wythe (the nation's first Law Professor) while at William & Mary College and did indeed become a practicing lawyer after the war (member of the Bar in Virginia) before entering politics first at the state level and then the federal level - serving in congress and then as Secretary of State before finally being appointed to the supreme court by John Adams.



Now what was it on ms Meier's resume that matched that again?


And one might consider that the expected understanding the finer points of precedents might have increased just a tad in the past 200 years...

It wasn't a value judgement, I was just reporting what I had found. Thx for the update on Marshall - his reading the law wasn't listed in the biography that I used.

It wasn't a value judgement, I was just reporting what I had found. Thx for the update on Marshall - his reading the law wasn't listed in the biography that I used.


Fair enough, I have just found it odd how some people here quote precedents on this issue such as bare statistics without taking into account the period.

I mean, it would be like a President appointing a vet to a head medical position and having people say "yeah, well in 1766 in rural areas docs and vets were often pretty interchangeable....so what's the big deal?")


Time DOES change the expected qualifications for some things.


Just curious, but who else do you have as a non-lawyer/non judge on your list?

Just curious, but who else do you have as a non-lawyer/non judge on your list?

Unfortunately, it's not on this computer. I won't be able to access it until tomorrow.

Depends on your point of view. From my perch on the American left/far left, I'd say the moderates were Kennedy (just barely), Stevens and Souter. Ginsberg and Breyer would pass for liberal in the US, and Scalia and Thomas are strongly conservative. Roberts we don't know anything about yet, but my guess is that he falls somewhere between Kennedy and Scalia, with Thomas being the outlier to the right.

Any member of the court who voted against Kelo in Kelo v. City of New London is a left-wing, anti-constitutional nut job. That leaves O'Connor, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Scalia. The radicals, led by Ginsberg, have eviscerated the 5th Amendment. They aren't moderates - they've re-written the constitution by giving a municipality carte blanche to condem a person's property so it can be sold (even at a profit) to the monied elites. We regular people have no more protection against a tyranical government such as New London.

Where's the so-called liberals looking out for the little guy here? No one cried for balance on this one. This is judicial tyranny at its worst.

Any member of the court who voted against Kelo in Kelo v. City of New London is a left-wing, anti-constitutional nut job. That leaves O'Connor, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Scalia. The radicals, led by Ginsberg, have eviscerated the 5th Amendment. They aren't moderates - they've re-written the constitution by giving a municipality carte blanche to condem a person's property so it can be sold (even at a profit) to the monied elites. We regular people have no more protection against a tyranical government such as New London.

Where's the so-called liberals looking out for the little guy here? No one cried for balance on this one. This is judicial tyranny at its worst.
The Fifth Amendment solely states private property can't be taken without just compensation, meaning physically equal compensation. If people are paid the full market price for their house and land, and then some, they have been justly compensated.

The Fifth Amendment solely states private property can't be taken without just compensation, meaning physically equal compensation. If people are paid the full market price for their house and land, and then some, they have been justly compensated.

It was never meant to steal from the citizens to enrich the already rich. The doctrine was already firmly established. It says TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE. No longer! The Compensation for Takings portion is now for the wealthy.

. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Keno v. New London was not for public use! That's what will happen more and more to the constitution when the likes of Ginsberg, et al become the majority. Where's the constitutional scholarship here? Now they're not just making up things and inserting them into the constitution, they're ripping pieces out.

Don't confuse him. He wouldn't know the truth if it kicked him in the ass! :p

Your post was completely unnecessary, Eutrusca. Don't do it again.

It was never meant to steal from the citizens to enrich the already rich. The doctrine was already firmly established. It says TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE. No longer! The Compensation for Takings portion is now for the wealthy.

. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Keno v. New London was not for public use! That's what will happen more and more to the constitution when the likes of Ginsberg, et al become the majority. Where's the constitutional scholarship here? Now they're not just making up things and inserting them into the constitution, they're ripping pieces out.
What is to happen to the Constituin when the court is ruled by Scalias and Robertses? Loss of the First Amendment? Fourth? The important parts of the Fifth and Sixth? Maybe we should just sign off all of our rights to free speech, press, religion, personal property, and fair trials to the will of the executive branch now and save the stacked court the hastle?

One, the new development plan by New London included details for a new state park, as well as other public use and public good developments.

It says TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE. No longer! The Compensation for Takings portion is now for the wealthy.

. . .

Keno v. New London was not for public use! That's what will happen more and more to the constitution when the likes of Ginsberg, et al become the majority. Where's the constitutional scholarship here? Now they're not just making up things and inserting them into the constitution, they're ripping pieces out.

First of all, Kelo wasn't out of the blue, it was building upon the principles of Poletown and Midkiff (authored by O'Connor). And the argument was that Kelo was for the public good -- by revitalizing the local economy (similar to Poletown). I don't agree with the Kelo decision but I know enough about eminent domain to not be shocked and outraged by it.

The majority opinion did stress though that state and local legislatures are free to legislate this issue and further limit eminent domain. Oh yeah, that sure is a crazy liberal idea -- letting state's have latitude on how to handle things.

Because we don't need an Ideologue. Don't you understand that?
While I do care about ideology, I am at least as equally concerned about qualifications. Luttig, Alito, Wilkinson, McConnell, Estrada, Garza, Kozinski. Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones, Edith Clement, Priscilla Owen, Karen Williams, Alice Batchelder, Maura Corrigan. All these have actual experience in constitutional law, and writings that show their understanding of it.

George Will just wrote a column saying that if you asked the 100 of the top legal eagles to name their top 100 picks to SCOTUS, Miers wouldn't be in any of the 10,000 choices.

Miers has virtually no experience in constitutional law, and no writings to indicate otherwise.

This also says to anyone in the law who is conservative that they'd better keep their mouth shut, because the only people to get nominated to higher judiciary positions will be stealth candidates.

Not to mention Bush specifically promised to nominate to SCOTUS those in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. If he hadn't promised that, I wouldn't have much to complain about it, but it was one of the centerpieces of his 2002 increases in the Senate and his 2004 victory.

The man needs to keep his word. Period.

What is to happen to the Constituin when the court is ruled by Scalias and Robertses? Loss of the First Amendment? Fourth? The important parts of the Fifth and Sixth? Maybe we should just sign off all of our rights to free speech, press, religion, personal property, and fair trials to the will of the executive branch now and save the stacked court the hastle?

One, the new development plan by New London included details for a new state park, as well as other public use and public good developments.
That's news to me. I read the decision, and nowhere did it mention the inclusion of parks. The land was being taken for a Pfizer corporation site.

The Kelo decision specifically stated that the Takings Clause should use the broadest definition possible.

What is indefensible is that the entity taking the property doesn't even have to prove that it will benefit the public economically, just say that its projections show that it will. I've seen many of these turn into boondoggles (Big Dig, anyone?).

The decision was based in part on the Midkiff decision out of Hawaii, which allowed the state of Hawaii to forcibly purchase a large amount of land for the purposes of redistribution to many of the island's native inhabitants. Socialism, anyone?

As to your previous post that you still get just compensation, who decides what just compensation is? If the entity is trying to make way for affordable housing for the poor, they could say just compensation is 1$, since it's
"for a good cause". Even if not that far, what's to prevent local or state governments from defining just compensation in ways beneficial to them, and not the individual citizen?

First of all, Kelo wasn't out of the blue, it was building upon the principles of Poletown and Midkiff (authored by O'Connor). And the argument was that Kelo was for the public good -- by revitalizing the local economy (similar to Poletown). I don't agree with the Kelo decision but I know enough about eminent domain to not be shocked and outraged by it.

The majority opinion did stress though that state and local legislatures are free to legislate this issue and further limit eminent domain. Oh yeah, that sure is a crazy liberal idea -- letting state's have latitude on how to handle things.
The only thing is, the Constition DOES directly address eminent domain. Which would seem to indicate federal control, rather than state control.

If the Constitution said nothing about it, I'd be behind you 100%. However, there is that pesky 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I believe the words "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" are controlling here.

Since I'm new here and you don't know anything about me, I'll first state that I'm a senior majoring in Political Science at Auburn, with a concentration in Law and a minor in business. I just took the LSAT and plan to go to law school next year, and have worked for a law firm for the past 2 summers...
*Not that any of that gives any over-riding validity to my opinions, but simply so you know my background...


On the nominee: Roberts got through nomination with a relative breeze. Hardly a word was said beyond the purely symbolic fist shaking by the Democratic hardliners. That's because he'd been around DC forever, everyone knew him, everyone liked him, and most importantly, everyone was impressed with him. That guy is unbelieveably smart. Throughout a week or so of inquisition, he answered very specific questions on case law without a single piece of paper providing him any reference. Many of the Senators themselves remarked that he is possibly the most intelligent individual ever to endure the process.

The second nominee was setup to be a massive battle. With Roberts having relatively no opposition, and the new nominee replacing a swing-voting woman, whoever it would have been would receive a blasting from either side. Even a moderate conservative would have been blasted by the Middle and Left, and goodness knows even a moderate liberal would never be approved by a Republican-controlled Senate.

So you split the difference. She's a Democrat, but in the old school, more traditional sense. She's done some things that either side likes/hates. That's why neither is happy, and that's why she's the best pick. Further, by her not having been a judge, she has no paper trail showing her views. While this creates a problem in that the committee will be tougher on her because of the lack of history, it's good in the sense that she's far more likely to be considered by both sides.

I also want to note that Bush doesn't hand pick these people. True, he formally nominates them, but there's a committee (whose name elludes me) made up of some of the best legal minds in the country that does all the major research and then makes recommendations to him. He takes that, combined with what he knows politically (a far left or right would never fly) and chooses accordingly. There are a lot of things he's done I don't like, but I think his USSC nominees have been very well executed.


The people who are saying that it's ridiculous the way we handle the USSC have no clue how and why our government works. A person elected by the people, the president, selects a person who is put before the Senate (elected by the people) to either approve or disprove. If the Senate disproves, then that's it for that person. By no means can the President simply slot in whomever he wants.

It is very true that the Constitution includes no requirement to be an SC judge. That's mainly a lesson in history, as at the time of its creation, there was precious little formal legal education in the US. Now, though, to even make the long list of considerations you must be one of the most accomplished lawyers in the country. It makes no difference at all that she has no specific judicial experience- any experienced lawyer, especially one of her stature, could be a judge if they chose; most don't because private practice is much more rewarding in terms of pay, flexibility, and so on.
Further, any decent lawyer knows the Constitution well; it's fundamental to their practice of law. And with her years of experience, I have no doubt that she's tried many a case with Constitutional ramifications.



I'll end it there for the sake of sanity. Great forum, by the way. Quite an interesting dichotomy of views, backgrounds, and experience.

The only thing is, the Constition DOES directly address eminent domain. Which would seem to indicate federal control, rather than state control.

If the Constitution said nothing about it, I'd be behind you 100%. However, there is that pesky 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I believe the words "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" are controlling here.

But liberal thought, liberal justices, and PC-ism have have all ignored the words in the constitution and have wondered "wouldn't it be peachy if . . . " Just because something sounds like a good idea, it doesn't mean that it is constitutional. If something needs to be done, then it should be legislated, not declared by judicial edict. The liberals need to start enacting laws, rather than ruling by tyrants in black robes.

It just might be better to have someone on the SC who's not a judge.

But liberal thought, liberal justices, and PC-ism have have all ignored the words in the constitution and have wondered "wouldn't it be peachy if . . . " Just because something sounds like a good idea, it doesn't mean that it is constitutional. If something needs to be done, then it should be legislated, not declared by judicial edict. The liberals need to start enacting laws, rather than ruling by tyrants in black robes.

It just might be better to have someone on the SC who's not a judge.
Any analyzing of that post shows great deals of irony.

The only thing is, the Constition DOES directly address eminent domain. Which would seem to indicate federal control, rather than state control.

If the Constitution said nothing about it, I'd be behind you 100%. However, there is that pesky 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I believe the words "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" are controlling here.

But the Bill of Rights are a basement and not a ceiling. Take for instance free speech -- the first amendment says that Congress (and states via the 14th amendment) cannot make laws "abridging the freedom of speech." But we all know that the government can regulate speech when it comes to obscenity, national security, and whatnot. This doesn't mean that states have to regulate something like obscenity -- state A could choose to not regulate any speech while state B could regulate more obscene materials (I think Utah versus Nevada would be a good comparison off the top of my head).

So, as for eminent domain -- "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" -- is the basement. SCOTUS has said communities, if they are justified, can seize land for public good as in Kelo. But if the state or local communities wished to, they could make legislature forbidding the use of eminent domain in certain areas. The Constitution only requires that if the government seizes private land, A) it's for public use and B) it's justy compensated.

But the Bill of Rights are a basement and not a ceiling. Take for instance free speech -- the first amendment says that Congress (and states via the 14th amendment) cannot make laws "abridging the freedom of speech." But we all know that the government can regulate speech when it comes to obscenity, national security, and whatnot. This doesn't mean that states have to regulate something like obscenity -- state A could choose to not regulate any speech while state B could regulate more obscene materials (I think Utah versus Nevada would be a good comparison off the top of my head).

So, as for eminent domain -- "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" -- is the basement. SCOTUS has said communities, if they are justified, can seize land for public good as in Kelo. But if the state or local communities wished to, they could make legislature forbidding the use of eminent domain in certain areas. The Constitution only requires that if the government seizes private land, A) it's for public use and B) it's justy compensated.
If the Constitution is just a "basement", as you say, where is the ceiling? What's to stop State B from regulating speech it just doesnt' like?

Using that logic, the second amendment can be a basement, so the states can legally ban gun use (which has occurred in some cities) - I guess the opposite of the right is the ceiling: i.e. freedom of speech's ceiling is total banning of all speech, freedom of assembly's ceiling is total banning of all assemblies, etc. That's a weak arguement.

The Constitution only requires that if the government seizes private land, A) it's for public use and B) it's justy compensated.

And any person with any common sense would read that statement to mean that the city of New London can't seize property to give to a private entity (Pfizer) so it can increase its tax base. Public use has morphed to public benefit has morphed to perceived public benefit. How far can it be twisted?

The only thing is, the Constition DOES directly address eminent domain. Which would seem to indicate federal control, rather than state control.

If the Constitution said nothing about it, I'd be behind you 100%. However, there is that pesky 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I believe the words "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" are controlling here.

Eminent domain = fifth amendment.

If the Constitution is just a "basement", as you say, where is the ceiling? What's to stop State B from regulating speech it just doesnt' like?

Using that logic, the second amendment can be a basement, so the states can legally ban gun use (which has occurred in some cities) - I guess the opposite of the right is the ceiling: i.e. freedom of speech's ceiling is total banning of all speech, freedom of assembly's ceiling is total banning of all assemblies, etc. That's a weak arguement.

I'm not sure if you get what I mean by basement/ceiling. By basement, I mean the Bill of Rights sets the minimum of what must be allowed. Freedom of assembly, for example -- the Bill of Rights guarantees that all citizens be given this freedom, but it has been understood that cities can require permits. This is the basement -- the minimum allowed. A state or municipality can go beyond this -- they can give even more of a right to freedom of assembly. They can say that no permit is required, for example.

So the crux of my argument is that state and local governments can go beyond the Bill of Rights and give their citizens even more rights then the Bill of Rights demands.



And any person with any common sense would read that statement to mean that the city of New London can't seize property to give to a private entity (Pfizer) so it can increase its tax base. Public use has morphed to public benefit has morphed to perceived public benefit. How far can it be twisted?

Read Midkiff, written by O'Connor. 467 US 229 (1984).

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/157/

Also consider Poletown. 304 N.W.2d 455, 410 Mich. 616 (1981).

"public use" can be for the public good -- which can mean a bettered economy or fairer housing market.