Harriet Miers: good or bad for SCOTUS?
The Harriet Miers nomination to SCOTUS has created an interesting political dynamic. On the left, she is decried as a possible Roe opponent with nothing in the way of a paper trail.
On the middle left, there is glee that she is a former Dem who donated to Al Gore's campaign, and that she is probably more liberal than many of the other choices Bush had.
On the middle right, there is praise for Bush for nominating a stealth candidate that he claims is conservative, but that only he really knows (his friend for 11 years).
On the right, many are critical that the choice passes over many other more qualified choices, and discourages those who have fought the good fight to get to this point, only to be shot down by this nomination.
Thoughts, anyone?
Teh_pantless_hero
08-10-2005, 05:14
Only he really knows? That isn't even conservative; that is Bushivist. She is a proud member of the Bushivist party.
Only he really knows? That isn't even conservative; that is Bushivist. She is a proud member of the Bushivist party.
Not sure I follow what you are saying?
Ph33rdom
08-10-2005, 05:19
Too early to tell...
Fjordburg
08-10-2005, 07:26
Not even anyone "in the know" knows much about her, so looking for a response here is not going to get anything more than political commentary one way or the other, if that.
She's never been a judge, so there's no history there. Politically, she's sort of an "old school" Southern Democrat. Watching the hearings is hands down the best way to get an idea of what someone will be like. Anything offered until then is purely speculative.
Beer and Guns
08-10-2005, 08:02
Too early to tell...
Without a doubt too early .
It’s quite obvious that she is one of Dick Cheney’s cyborg servants.
Americai
08-10-2005, 08:48
On the right, many are critical that the choice passes over many other more qualified choices, and discourages those who have fought the good fight to get to this point, only to be shot down by this nomination.
Thoughts, anyone?
I fall in this catagory. Seriously, what the HELL was he thinking is what I'd normally think, but this is Bush to be frank. John Roberts and Colin Powell are flukes.
He normally is a "idiot hires dumb friend" type of guy.
Truth be told, I think he nominated her simply BECAUSE she has no dick. O'Conner whom I deeply respect, and his airhead wife were nagging him to elect a female nominee. This only lead to tragic results.
The problem is few American women are like O'Conner and actually are deeply well read in the Constitution. Most are like his airhead wife who prefer sexist agenda over real qualifications. Its getting ridiculous. If women want women leaders, women need to start getting more qualified and more in tune with the behavior of the American founders instead of the whole femnazi movement gone politicians. We need more O'Conners, not Miers.
Leonstein
08-10-2005, 08:55
Well number one: "Liberal" means something different.... :D I'm going to keep saying that until you Yanks change the way you speak!
Anyways, I think it is of no importance who she gave money to at some point (the cynic in me thinks that she financed Gore so she'd have an easier life now).
She's a mate of Bush's, and this is what is commonly known as cronyism. Had she not been with Bush, she would not have been considered - her career isn't that outstanding.
And she seriously lacks experience. I've been told that is relatively common with the SCOTUS, but still - never been a judge? Not the kind of person I'd trust with the important decision.
Well, I'm not sure, but I'm a conservative and heading towards the against, purely for the reason, shes never been a judge in her life, and something I've just seen, she supported Gore? never seen that before, but it adds to the mess. I'm not sure is the answer, why isn't there a choice for that?