NationStates Jolt Archive

Comment: Beyond the hypocrisy, I find it deeply disturbing that anyone would be promoted to the US Supreme Court primarily on grounds of his or her religious faith. This is scary stuff.

Faith-Based Hypocrisy (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601584.html)

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post
Friday, October 7, 2005; Page A23

Now we know: President Bush's supporters are prepared to be thoroughly hypocritical when it comes to religion. They'll play religion up or down, whichever helps them most in a political fight.

Shortly after Bush named John Roberts to the Supreme Court, a few Democrats, including Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), suggested that the nominee might reasonably be questioned about the impact of his religious faith on his decisions as a justice.


Durbin had his head taken off. "We have no religious tests for public office in this country," thundered Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), insisting that any inquiry about a potential judge's religious views was "offensive." Fidelis, a conservative Catholic group, declared that "Roberts' religious faith and how he lives that faith as an individual has no bearing and no place in the confirmation process."

But now that Harriet Miers, Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, is in trouble with conservatives, her religious faith and how she lives that faith are becoming central to the case being made for her by the administration and its supporters. Miers has almost no public record. Don't worry, the administration's allies are telling their friends on the right, she's an evangelical Christian .

Marvin Olasky, a conservative Christian writer who has been a strong Bush supporter, explained his sympathy for Miers. "Maybe it's the judicial implications of her evangelical faith, unseen on the court in recent decades," Olasky wrote on his blog. "Friends who know Miers well testify to her internal compass that includes a needle pointed toward Christ."

James Dobson, the founder and chairman of the evangelical organization Focus on the Family, told Fox News's Brit Hume: "We know people who have known her for 20, 25 years, and they would vouch for her. . . . I know the church that she goes to and I know the people who go to church with her." On the Wednesday edition of his radio show, Dobson was more specific: "I know the individual who led her to the Lord."

Rather mysteriously, Dobson, who was briefed on the nomination by Bush's chief lieutenant, Karl Rove, told Hume: "I do know things that I am not prepared to talk about here." He was equally cagey with the New York Times: "Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about." The intrigue whetted the curiosity of Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), who said that "if the White House gives information to James Dobson, that information should be shared equally with the U.S. Senate."

Jay Sekulow, counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, said on Pat Robertson's television show that the Miers nomination was "a big opportunity for those of us who have a conviction, that share an evangelical faith in Christianity, to see someone with our positions put on the court."

The use of Miers's religion as a magnet for conservative support is not just the work of a few religious voices. It's part of the administration's strategy. The New York Times reported that the White House put Judge Nathan L. Hecht, Miers's close friend and a fellow member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas, "on at least one conference call with influential social conservative organizers" to testify to her conservative faith.

Let's be clear: It is pro-administration conservatives, not those terrible liberals, who are making an issue of Miers's evangelical faith. Liberals are not opposing Miers because she is an evangelical. Conservatives are telling their friends to support Miers because she is an evangelical.

There is, however, some good news. A significant number of conservatives are outraged over the administration's look-at-her-faith campaign. I was first tipped off to the White House's pious strategy earlier this week by a prominent conservative who is very sympathetic to people of faith but angry at what he sees as the misuse of religion in the Miers battle.

And Ed Morrissey, whose "Captain's Quarters" is one of the most popular conservative blogs, said publicly what other concerned conservatives have said privately. "The push by more enthusiastic Miers supporters to consider her religious outlook smacks of a bit of hypocrisy," Morrissey wrote. "After all, we argued the exact opposite when it came to John Roberts and William Pryor when they appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. . . . Conservatives claimed that using religion as a reason for rejection violated the Constitution and any notion of religious freedom. Does that really change if we base our support on the same grounds?"

I'm eagerly awaiting the White House's answer to that question.

And to me it seemed like the only reason that Miers was supposed to be a good nomination was because she was a woman. Now I find that there are two reasons that she's supposed to be a good nomination. Thank you, Cat-Tribe, I feel much better now knowing that she has several qualifications for Supreme Court Justice.

I don't even care about her religious beliefs. She simply isn't qualified for the position; this is more or less cronyism at its worst.

Of course, the fact that this is totally dismantling Bush's conservative base bodes well for 2006 and 2008. The Republican party is falling apart, it seems.

It adds to the proof of two things:

1. That all those Bush/religious-right apologists who keep insisting that they aren't trying to impose religious views on the law are either lying or deluded; and

2. The neo-cons/religious right are a bunch of ruthless, power-hungry bastards who will say and do anything to cement long-term control over the nation. They never hesitate to lie, flip-flop, twist language and law, and make secret, often illegal, deals to get their way, and to use accusations of the same against their opponents. Harriet Miers, for instance, is obviously chosen solely on the promise that she will "legislate from the bench" for their agenda, something secular or liberal justices are blamed for.

I wonder, if we ever succeed in crowbarring these jerks out of the government, if some good lawyers could come up with some way to twist the law against them, and remove most of the current justices from the SC, on some grounds or other?

And here's a thought -- Why can't we have SC nominees selected by the American Bar Association, instead of having them be just political appointees? EDIT: I mean, when an opening comes up, the ABA submits a list of professionally qualified judges for the government to choose from. And further, I'd rather reverse the roles and have the Congress select the new justices, with the president merely advising and consenting. After all, picking the justices is just a privilege of the president. It doesn't have to be that way.

The reason social conservatives are reassured by Meirs's religiosity is because it's one of the few facts we have about her, for good or ill. Being an evangelical doesn't necessarily make you a conservative, but some 70% of evangelicals describe themselves as Republicans, so it may be reassuring to a Republican considering her nomination, given that she's donated to both conservatives and liberals, including Al Gore's primary bid at one point.

On to John Roberts, I don't ever remember being outraged that someone should question his religious credentials or how they may impact his decisionmaking. I'd welcome it, and I believe it was discussed, at least obliquely, at his hearing.

Life time appointments. Yeah, that's a good idea.

Let's be clear: It is pro-administration conservatives, not those terrible liberals, who are making an issue of Miers's evangelical faith. Liberals are not opposing Miers because she is an evangelical. Conservatives are telling their friends to support Miers because she is an evangelical.

Way to go, Cat-Tribe, through extensive research you have unmasked the truth that has eluded the rest of us for so long: politicians are hypocrites. Well, at least pro-administration conservatives are hypocrites. The liberals are the only people with a lick of sense, and they never demonstrate blatant hypocrisy in the least. :rolleyes: Great article, man. What a golden find.

It adds to the proof of two things:

1. That all those Bush/religious-right apologists who keep insisting that they aren't trying to impose religious views on the law are either lying or deluded; and

2. The neo-cons/religious right are a bunch of ruthless, power-hungry bastards who will say and do anything to cement long-term control over the nation. They never hesitate to lie, flip-flop, twist language and law, and make secret, often illegal, deals to get their way, and to use accusations of the same against their opponents. Harriet Miers, for instance, is obviously chosen solely on the promise that she will "legislate from the bench" for their agenda, something secular or liberal justices are blamed for.

I wonder, if we ever succeed in crowbarring these jerks out of the government, if some good lawyers could come up with some way to twist the law against them, and remove most of the current justices from the SC, on some grounds or other?

And here's a thought -- Why can't we have SC nominees selected by the American Bar Association, instead of having them be just political appointees? EDIT: I mean, when an opening comes up, the ABA submits a list of professionally qualified judges for the government to choose from. And further, I'd rather reverse the roles and have the Congress select the new justices, with the president merely advising and consenting. After all, picking the justices is just a privilege of the president. It doesn't have to be that way.


I would welcome a sugesstion such as granting more SC involvement by the Congress... But, the ABA has no authority, and nor should it be given none, in relation to selection of SC nominees... The ABA is not a governmental institution, and should be granted no special governmental authority or power; given that the association is not a function of our Federal Republic, neither our State Republics... And the ABA has no power over the people we hold in high office, doesn't matter if they are S.C. justice, District Attorney/Commonwealth Attorney or the like...

Comment: Beyond the hypocrisy, I find it deeply disturbing that anyone would be promoted to the US Supreme Court primarily on grounds of his or her religious faith. This is scary stuff.
Don't you ever get tired of being so farkkin' predictable? :confused:

Don't you ever get tired of being so farkkin' predictable? :confused:
Predictability is a means of comfort. I fear the day when Cat-Tribe's little political-esque rants aren't here for me to warm up against.

It would be a cold world indeed.

Simonist']Predictability is a means of comfort. I fear the day when Cat-Tribe's little political-esque rants aren't here for me to warm up against.

It would be a cold world indeed.
Heh! Perhaps, but too much predictability bores me to tears! ;)

Heh! Perhaps, but too much predictability bores me to tears! ;)
Well consider my shoulder always a shoulder to.....tear.....upon. Guess it's not much crying.

As to the on-topic comment I'd originally intended to make (you are the physical embodiment of forum distraction, Eutrusca).....I was against Roberts and I'm very against Miers. Hope this is the wrench that needed to be thrown in the gears.

Don't you ever get tired of being so farkkin' predictable? :confused:

Because the Republican party's blatant hypocrisy and shameless appeal to people's theocratic sentiments that Cat-Tribe has so graciously informed us of is entirely meaningless as Cat-Tribe has a history of being anti-Bush/Republican. :rolleyes:

And when it comes to predictablility, people in glass houses shouldn't cast stones Mr. Horn. You border on the Pavlovian when the word 'Sheehan' graces our fine forum. :p

Because the Republican party's blatant hypocrisy and shameless appeal to people's theocratic sentiments that Cat-Tribe has so graciously informed us of is entirely meaningless as Cat-Tribe has a history of being anti-Bush/Republican. :rolleyes:

And when it comes to predictablility, people in glass houses shouldn't cast stones Mr. Horn. You border on the Pavlovian when the word 'Sheehan' graces our fine forum. :p
Oooh, snap. I believe I had forgotten your continual involvement in the Sheehan debates.

Hats off to you, Kroisistan.

'Sheehan' :p
:sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:



Happy now? :D

:sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:



Happy now? :D

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Defense rests.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Defense rests.
LOL! :D

( Actually, it should be "the prosecution rests," not the "defense," but whatever! ) ;)

LOL! :D

( Actually, it should be "the prosecution rests," not the "defense," but whatever! ) ;)

Funnily enough I ran that through my head before posting. I stuck with defense because first it sounded cooler and secondly I was technically defending Cat-Tribe from your accusation.

So you weren't on trial, but lord knows that didn't stop you from incriminating yourself all the same :D

snip.

Though this article, like much of what you dig up, takes most of the issues out of context, I will admit that I am on your side of the aisle on this one.

I would much prefer a more libertarian type on board. An evangelical on the court!? (shudder) No thanks.

I would much prefer someone who is more dedicated to keeping the government out of my hair and restrained; be it reproductive rights, state rights, or property rights.

Washington; get your goddam government our of my life, my bedroom and my wallet.

Funnily enough I ran that through my head before posting. I stuck with defense because first it sounded cooler and secondly I was technically defending Cat-Tribe from your accusation.

So you weren't on trial, but lord knows that didn't stop you from incriminating yourself all the same :D
ROFL! Uh huh. I do that all the time. Mostly it's 'cause I don't give a flying rats ass! :D

Just to be more fair to Ms. Myers;
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051009/ap_on_go_su_co/miers

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., accused critics of Miers' nomination of being "incredibly sexist."
"They're saying a woman who was one of the first to head up a major law firm with over 400 lawyers doesn't have intellectual heft," Mikulski said. "I find this a double standard."

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada recommended that Bush nominate Miers and has praised her several times since then.

"All the trashing is coming from the right wing of the Republican Party," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said in a conference call with reporters. "I really think it's despicable what they're doing."

So I guess both Cat and I are siding with the conservatives in congress on this one.

The Democrats are just as big of 'tards as Bush on this issue. While Bush may be touting Miers's religion, the Democrats are going all anti-Catholic:
"Oh no3s1!!eleventy1! Too many Catholics on the SCOTUS! Better play the AA card!"

The Democrats are just as big of 'tards as Bush on this issue. While Bush may be touting Miers's religion, the Democrats are going all anti-Catholic:
"Oh no3s1!!eleventy1! Too many Catholics on the SCOTUS! Better play the AA card!"

When did the Democrats freak out about too many Catholics on SCOTUS?
Did this happen in a dream you had?

I fail to see how one conference call is evidence of an administration strategy. For a lawyer, you provide little evidence for the main argument. Everything else is just the opinion of evangelical conservative Christians...And of course they're going to like the fact that Miers is one of them!

It adds to the proof of two things:

1. That all those Bush/religious-right apologists who keep insisting that they aren't trying to impose religious views on the law are either lying or deluded; and

2. The neo-cons/religious right are a bunch of ruthless, power-hungry bastards who will say and do anything to cement long-term control over the nation. They never hesitate to lie, flip-flop, twist language and law, and make secret, often illegal, deals to get their way, and to use accusations of the same against their opponents. Harriet Miers, for instance, is obviously chosen solely on the promise that she will "legislate from the bench" for their agenda, something secular or liberal justices are blamed for.

I wonder, if we ever succeed in crowbarring these jerks out of the government, if some good lawyers could come up with some way to twist the law against them, and remove most of the current justices from the SC, on some grounds or other?

And here's a thought -- Why can't we have SC nominees selected by the American Bar Association, instead of having them be just political appointees? EDIT: I mean, when an opening comes up, the ABA submits a list of professionally qualified judges for the government to choose from. And further, I'd rather reverse the roles and have the Congress select the new justices, with the president merely advising and consenting. After all, picking the justices is just a privilege of the president. It doesn't have to be that way.
Actually, the Bush administration already created quite an uproar when it eliminated the ABA as the qualifier of SCOTUS nominees. Many in his administration believe that the ABA tilts left and that could color their rating of potential conservative nominees. The ABA still rates the nominees anyway. I might just as soon suggest the Federalist Society fill that role, though I doubt you would feel comfortable with that.

As to your assertion that picking justices is just a privilege of the president, I refer you to the following(Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2, US Constitution):

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, "

As to your suggestion that "come up with some way to twist the law against them, and remove most of the current justices from the SC, on some grounds or other", you confirm what conservatives have always said about liberal justice: it twists the law to its own ends.

I've actually read another interesting theory as to Miers' nomination recently, as to why Bush sold out the Federalist Society, who has been working toward this moment for a long time.

In one word: torture.

The Federalist Society has long been on record as arguing that there truly is a separation of powers, and that the Executive is answerable to the judicial as well as the legislative branches of government. It's possible--and this is only theory here--that the reason Bush went the way he did, with two nominees who favor giving the executive great latitude in a "time of war" is because he's trying to cover his ass and the asses of his main administrative buddies once they get out of office.

And what has Miers' greatest asset been considered as of yet? Her loyalty.

Just a theory.

Actually, the Bush administration already created quite an uproar when it eliminated the ABA as the qualifier of SCOTUS nominees. Many in his administration believe that the ABA tilts left and that could color their rating of potential conservative nominees. The ABA still rates the nominees anyway. I might just as soon suggest the Federalist Society fill that role, though I doubt you would feel comfortable with that.

As to your assertion that picking justices is just a privilege of the president, I refer you to the following(Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2, US Constitution):

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, "

As to your suggestion that "come up with some way to twist the law against them, and remove most of the current justices from the SC, on some grounds or other", you confirm what conservatives have always said about liberal justice: it twists the law to its own ends.

I think you scared them with your use of facts and logic against their hyperbole, speculation and irrational assumptions.

Comment: Beyond the hypocrisy, I find it deeply disturbing that anyone would be promoted to the US Supreme Court primarily on grounds of his or her religious faith. This is scary stuff.

I'm eagerly awaiting the White House's answer to that question.
Two things spring to mind:
1. Why are you so surprised that the Bush admin are hypocrites who use religion whenever it's convenient to do so?
2. Do you really think, given their track record against probing or uncomfortable (makes it sound like a prostate examination!) questions, they're going to bother to respond to that one?

Frankly, nothing they do surprises (actually that should be shocks/depresses) me anymore.

And to me it seemed like the only reason that Miers was supposed to be a good nomination was because she was a woman. Now I find that there are two reasons that she's supposed to be a good nomination. Thank you, Cat-Tribe, I feel much better now knowing that she has several qualifications for Supreme Court Justice.

So, in your opinion, being a woman makes you a good nomination for the Supreme Court? Aileen Wuornos would have been a good nomination? I guess the second reason is because she is an evangelical Christian? Thats a good reason to appoint someone? Did you even read the original post and do you understand the danger of appointing someone to the Supreme Court based on their faith? I hope you're being sarcastic.

I would welcome a sugesstion such as granting more SC involvement by the Congress... But, the ABA has no authority, and nor should it be given none, in relation to selection of SC nominees... The ABA is not a governmental institution, and should be granted no special governmental authority or power; given that the association is not a function of our Federal Republic, neither our State Republics... And the ABA has no power over the people we hold in high office, doesn't matter if they are S.C. justice, District Attorney/Commonwealth Attorney or the like...
The reason I suggested the ABA is because, as the licensing organization for all lawyers, they may have more immediate access to the kind of professional information that might disqualify a candidate -- like malpractice suits, harassment complaints, etc. -- as well as all their professional and academic writings. It would be merely a first level screening and may ensure that at least the finally chosen judge is qualified.
(I'm sure their records are consulted anyway in the vetting process as it is almost all public information anyway.)

It is my opinion that SC appointments have become too politically motivated, and this is undermining the independence of the judiciary. We don't see too much effect if the nominees are truly good lawyers, but I have serious doubts about Harriet Miers, and I've had suspicions about Thomas and Scalia, too (anyone for a duck hunt?). My idea would be a fundamental change, yes, but consider this -- since the US is governed by the rule of law (supposedly), that accounts for the high number of lawyers who transition into politics, many of whom retain their licenses to practice. I think a good argument can be made for granting the ABA or an off-shoot of it a kind of NGO status as an independent watchdog agency, somewhat like the General Accounting Office. Its purpose would be merely to do quality control on SC nominees.

Because the Republican party's blatant hypocrisy and shameless appeal to people's theocratic sentiments that Cat-Tribe has so graciously informed us of is entirely meaningless as Cat-Tribe has a history of being anti-Bush/Republican. :rolleyes:

And when it comes to predictablility, people in glass houses shouldn't cast stones Mr. Horn. You border on the Pavlovian when the word 'Sheehan' graces our fine forum. :p
Glad I read it you stated what I was thinking lol

Actually, the Bush administration already created quite an uproar when it eliminated the ABA as the qualifier of SCOTUS nominees. Many in his administration believe that the ABA tilts left and that could color their rating of potential conservative nominees. The ABA still rates the nominees anyway. I might just as soon suggest the Federalist Society fill that role, though I doubt you would feel comfortable with that.

As to your assertion that picking justices is just a privilege of the president, I refer you to the following(Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2, US Constitution):

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, "

As to your suggestion that "come up with some way to twist the law against them, and remove most of the current justices from the SC, on some grounds or other", you confirm what conservatives have always said about liberal justice: it twists the law to its own ends.
1. Aha! I knew it was a good idea. Forgive me for dismissing the Bush admin's concerns about the ABA tilting left; they say that about anyone who isn't guaranteed in advance to agree with them. And any way, I don't want the ABA to select the justices, just to provide a list of qualified professionals -- it could easily contain hundreds of names.

2. The Constitution lays out lots of jobs, roles, statuses and privileges, not all of which are vital to the running of the country. It was never meant to be the Bible. But in the interest of not opening up a race to rewrite the thing, I'll drop that suggestion. If the President is only allowed to pick from among qualified candidates, then I'd be satisfied.

3. Turnabout is fair play, friend, but, anyway, guess what? All lawyers -- left, right and center -- twist the law, at least a bit. That's what they do. It's the way their game is played -- here are the laws; let's see if I can convince the court that they support my argument rather than yours. This is called interpretation of the law (rather like chicken entrails). If the law was not open to interpretation (including persuasion, manipulation, even twisting), then we wouldn't need lawyers or trials or appeals courts, including the SC.

I think you scared them with your use of facts and logic against their hyperbole, speculation and irrational assumptions.
He didn't scare me; I was just busy for a couple of days. :)
Let me remind you that it is neither logical nor factual to simply describe the argument you favor as logical and factual while dismissing the argument you don't like with judgmental language. Nothing I've said is unreasonable, whether you like it or not. I am merely suggesting a few small changes of procedure to reduce the influence of politics and cronyism on the judiciary. Surely that's not a bad thing, no matter who is president. You may disagree with how it should be done, but it seems a bit much to denounce the suggestion entirely.

Hmmm, this is even worse than what he had been saying up until pushing her faith, which was nothing more than, "Trust me."

He didn't scare me; I was just busy for a couple of days. :)


How DARE you! ;)

Nice reply btw.

Way to go, Cat-Tribe, through extensive research you have unmasked the truth that has eluded the rest of us for so long: politicians are hypocrites. Well, at least pro-administration conservatives are hypocrites. The liberals are the only people with a lick of sense, and they never demonstrate blatant hypocrisy in the least. :rolleyes: Great article, man. What a golden find.

Meethinks thou doest protest too much.

The article nails a very specific and very disturbing set of facts -- not limited to the hypocrisy of the Bushites.

Apparently you had not intelligent comment.

Though this article, like much of what you dig up, takes most of the issues out of context, I will admit that I am on your side of the aisle on this one.

I would much prefer a more libertarian type on board. An evangelical on the court!? (shudder) No thanks.

I would much prefer someone who is more dedicated to keeping the government out of my hair and restrained; be it reproductive rights, state rights, or property rights.

Washington; get your goddam government our of my life, my bedroom and my wallet.

I'm glad we at least partially agree on this.

I am amused, however, that you say may article takes the issues "out of context." In what other context do they belong? In what context is selecting or promoting a Justice primarily based on her religion acceptable?

I fail to see how one conference call is evidence of an administration strategy. For a lawyer, you provide little evidence for the main argument. Everything else is just the opinion of evangelical conservative Christians...And of course they're going to like the fact that Miers is one of them!

I hope you enjoyed eating all the crow that the news of the last several days has served up in response to your feeble attempt to separate the administration from the touting of Ms. Miers religion.

Life time appointments. Yeah, that's a good idea.

It's supposed to grant some kind of independence to the judiciary. Would you rather a situation when the government can place the judiciary on a short leash?

Of course, it's only helpful when the appointments aren't so blatantly partisan...

It's supposed to grant some kind of independence to the judiciary. Would you rather a situation when the government can place the judiciary on a short leash?

Of course, it's only helpful when the appointments aren't so blatantly partisan...

What about it? You could have long fixed terms and still have judicial independence. The New York Judiciary manages with those, and has done so for over a hundred years.

There is absolutely no reason (other than the bumfuckery of actually amending the constitution) that I can see why someone should sit in a court for thirty to forty years without their position ever being reviewed.

How DARE you! ;)

Nice reply btw.
Any time. :D

It was actually the truth. I mostly do the forums while I'm at work. Sometimes, I actually have to do work though. (How dare they! :mad: )

I hope you enjoyed eating all the crow that the news of the last several days has served up in response to your feeble attempt to separate the administration from the touting of Ms. Miers religion.

First, my opinion when I stated it was accurate. If it has changed, well, I'd like to see some evidence. I've had a lot of schoolwork, so I've been detached from the political flow, but I'll look it up. If the situation has changed, well, then I'll concede.

If they state her religious beliefs are the reason she should be chosen, then yes, I'll be disgusted by such a cheap political ploy. But if they simply tout her morality...well, I'd agree with 'em.

Overall she seems to be a decent candidate. She's conservative, but not in the activist sense, and seems to be in tune with both the constitution and the will of the majority of the U.S. I find it unlikely Bush would try to get somoene in who wants to overturn Roe V. Wade; he doesn't want to, since the American people don't want it.

There is absolutely no reason (other than the bumfuckery of actually amending the constitution) that I can see why someone should sit in a court for thirty to forty years without their position ever being reviewed.
Justices can be impeached. IIRC, seven of them have been. Some of them were even removed from their position.

Justices can be impeached. IIRC, seven of them have been. Some of them were even removed from their position.

If we start to use impeachment for that reason, it would threaten judicial independence.

The reason I suggested the ABA is because, as the licensing organization for all lawyers, they may have more immediate access to the kind of professional information that might disqualify a candidate -- like malpractice suits, harassment complaints, etc. -- as well as all their professional and academic writings. It would be merely a first level screening and may ensure that at least the finally chosen judge is qualified.
(I'm sure their records are consulted anyway in the vetting process as it is almost all public information anyway.)

It is my opinion that SC appointments have become too politically motivated, and this is undermining the independence of the judiciary. We don't see too much effect if the nominees are truly good lawyers, but I have serious doubts about Harriet Miers, and I've had suspicions about Thomas and Scalia, too (anyone for a duck hunt?). My idea would be a fundamental change, yes, but consider this -- since the US is governed by the rule of law (supposedly), that accounts for the high number of lawyers who transition into politics, many of whom retain their licenses to practice. I think a good argument can be made for granting the ABA or an off-shoot of it a kind of NGO status as an independent watchdog agency, somewhat like the General Accounting Office. Its purpose would be merely to do quality control on SC nominees.

S.C. justices are always politically motivated, unlike the English system, the US Judiciary is it's own governmental branch, equal to the legislature and executive. What you're actually proposing is a devolution of the judiciary to the old English system, whereby Justices become officers again. The ABA might provisionally control the licensure of lawyers, they have no power over [and should have no power over] justices, District [or Commonwealth, or State, or United States] Attorney's.... The ABA's code of conduct is only applicable to lawyers in practice... The ABA cannot, however, be granted authority OVER the government itself, and attempting to put forth such is absurd and anti-democratic....

If we start to use impeachment for that reason, it would threaten judicial independence.
The only reason I can think of to review judges is for the purposes of impeachment. What did you have in mind?

First, my opinion when I stated it was accurate. If it has changed, well, I'd like to see some evidence. I've had a lot of schoolwork, so I've been detached from the political flow, but I'll look it up. If the situation has changed, well, then I'll concede.

If they state her religious beliefs are the reason she should be chosen, then yes, I'll be disgusted by such a cheap political ploy. But if they simply tout her morality...well, I'd agree with 'em.

Overall she seems to be a decent candidate. She's conservative, but not in the activist sense, and seems to be in tune with both the constitution and the will of the majority of the U.S. I find it unlikely Bush would try to get somoene in who wants to overturn Roe V. Wade; he doesn't want to, since the American people don't want it.
There are so many more important decisions than sending Roe vs Wade back to the states to decide. That's all that would happen, you know. States would decide whether to allow abortion. Shortly afterwards, all the abortion business would be centered in California, New York, and Florida.

More importantly, there are serious questions about property rights, due process, police protection, free speech, and many others that are going to be heard by the court. Harriet just hasn't demonstrated the conservative/fundamental constructionist views that are necessary to decide these questions in a satisfactory way. If anything, she leans a little left on federalism.

There are so many more important decisions than sending Roe vs Wade back to the states to decide. That's all that would happen, you know. States would decide whether to allow abortion. Shortly afterwards, all the abortion business would be centered in California, New York, and Florida.

More importantly, there are serious questions about property rights, due process, police protection, free speech, and many others that are going to be heard by the court. Harriet just hasn't demonstrated the conservative/fundamental constructionist views that are necessary to decide these questions in a satisfactory way. If anything, she leans a little left on federalism.

Well, yes, but most of the Left wing criticism centers around the abortion issue. And while I'd prefer someone more right leaning on issues like property rights and free speech, I doubt the Democrats in Congress will tolerate it. One of the reasons she was chosen was probably because it's hard to know what her position is; otherwise she'd have no chance of getting through the nomination process.

Well, yes, but most of the Left wing criticism centers around the abortion issue. And while I'd prefer someone more right leaning on issues like property rights and free speech, I doubt the Democrats in Congress will tolerate it. One of the reasons she was chosen was probably because it's hard to know what her position is; otherwise she'd have no chance of getting through the nomination process.
What it comes down to is that we need a good justice. Not a conveniently confirmed one. That's already been done with John "I can't discuss that" Roberts.

What it comes down to is that we need a good justice. Not a conveniently confirmed one. That's already been done with John "I can't discuss that" Roberts.
I'm sure everyone would agree with that.

But then ask them what exactly a "good justice" is, and you have a problem...A justice that never gets appointed, no matter how good he is, isn't a justice.

And Roberts didn't talk out of political considerations, but his record seems to indicate a good, conservative, constructionist record, and remarkable intelligence.

I'm sure everyone would agree with that.

But then ask them what exactly a "good justice" is, and you have a problem...A justice that never gets appointed, no matter how good he is, isn't a justice.

And Roberts didn't talk out of political considerations, but his record seems to indicate a good, conservative, constructionist record, and remarkable intelligence.
The only thing a Supreme needs to know how to do is read and understand the Constitution. What France, or Iran, or Pakistan does with their legal problems isn't important. What plays well on TV isn't important. GWB's encouragement to 'Trust Me' is wearing a little thin. Especially after seeing his poor judgment with some of the other pals he appointed to office. At least Mr. Brown resigned from FEMA. I doubt Mrs. Miers would do the same from the Supreme Court in the wake of poor public opinion.

The only thing a Supreme needs to know how to do is read and understand the Constitution. What France, or Iran, or Pakistan does with their legal problems isn't important. What plays well on TV isn't important. GWB's encouragement to 'Trust Me' is wearing a little thin. Especially after seeing his poor judgment with some of the other pals he appointed to office. At least Mr. Brown resigned from FEMA. I doubt Mrs. Miers would do the same from the Supreme Court in the wake of poor public opinion.
Well, it's more complicated than that. Every candidate understands and interprets the Constitution differently; I have no doubt Mrs. Miers understands the Constitution, she was a highly successful lawyer for a long time. The issue is how she understands the Constitution, and the problem is we can't figure that out because it automatically disqualifies her from being nominated.

Well, it's more complicated than that. Every candidate understands and interprets the Constitution differently; I have no doubt Mrs. Miers understands the Constitution, she was a highly successful lawyer for a long time. The issue is how she understands the Constitution, and the problem is we can't figure that out because it automatically disqualifies her from being nominated.
So she understands the Constitution because she was a highly successful business lawyer?