NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102700547.html

Harriet Miers withdrew this morning as a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.

UPDATE: A quote from Harry Reid. "The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues."

UPDATE: A quote from Harry Reid. "The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues."

Could you tell us any more as to the character of Harry Reid?

Hmmm....Miers was never exactly the best qualified candidate to begin with, but with pressure from these right wing groups, I'm worried that Bush will nominate a complete douchebag next just to saitsfy these fringe groups.

Next up, a rabid conservative promising to roll back the clock like a Christian Taliban member on rights for women and minorities. Brought to you by the age-old habit of "pandering to your base".


I thought the Dems were in a tough spot. They knew that Miers was unqualified, but were afraid of what the alternative would be. So they sat back, got to play like they weren't being obstructionists, and let the Right beat the snot out of the President for them. there is the old saying that you don;t jump in front of your opponent while he's driving towards the cliff.


Still, I thought they should have spent a bit more time hammering her lack of qualifications to show that they were interested in the central tenent of providing sound government. Indeed, in today's partisan world some Democratic opposition might have caused a knee-jerk pro-Miers reaction from the right by the people who screamed loudest against her.....

Could you tell us any more as to the character of Harry Reid?
Harry Reid is the Senate Minority leader. He is (obviously) a Democrat. He's a pretty decent fellow, moderate as these things go, but he has been pulling no punches when it comes to criticizing the current administration.

Harry Reid is the Senate Minority leader. He is (obviously) a Democrat. He's a pretty decent fellow, moderate as these things go, but he has been pulling no punches when it comes to criticizing the current administration.

Fair enough. It does seem to imply a lack of spine on Bush's behalf though, and to be honest, he deserves everything he gets now.

Hmmm....Miers was never exactly the best qualified candidate to begin with, but with pressure from these right wing groups, I'm worried that Bush will nominate a complete douchebag next just to saitsfy these fringe groups.
In a way, I hope he does. I hope he forces the Republicans out there to realize their party is being run by religious extremists. I hope he picks somebody so radical that the Democrats overcome their chronic spinelessness long enough to block the nominee...or, even better, that Republicans wake the hell up and join the Democrats in blocking the Talibangelists from stacking SCOTUS with fundamentalist wackjobs.

I'm surprised that not more people are talking about this today. Perhaps because she was such a bad choice people are indifferent to her withdrawal. However, I'd now say, be afraid, very afraid, since it appears that the extreme right wing won this round and who knows what kind of right wing freak he'll nominate now. All I can do is thank my lucky stars that I live in Canada.

UPDATE: A quote from Harry Reid. "The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues."

For once, I have to agree with Harry Reid.

Don't get your hopes up.

The only reason that Miers was nominated in the first place is because every potential nominee on the short list apparently refuses to take part in the "process".

To the very last person, they all indicated that the process of approval had little to do with judicial competence, and everything to do with being vindictive and abusive. None would put their own families through it.

When the "approval" process involves news media digging through everything in your private life that is unrelated to judicial activity, including your children's adoption paperwork, and the media finds it must comment bitterly about the clothes your children are wearing, then you aren't going to find too many people of any political persuasion who want to go through with the "approval" process.

I might add that inane questions that require a nominee to absolutely promise which way they'll rule on particular political issues (rather than individual cases on an individual basis) are a further deterrent to a competent nominee.

It's hard enough to get anyone of competence to run for President, given the black eye that even the loser's family will get. Forget trying to get someone decent to sit through the approval process for Supreme Court justice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102700547.html

Harriet Miers withdrew this morning as a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now that Harriet Miers is going to remain Bush's Cleaning Lady in the White House, Bush will pick another Neo-Con that he and his handlers can ALL agree on.

I'm surprised that not more people are talking about this today. Perhaps because she was such a bad choice people are indifferent to her withdrawal. However, I'd now say, be afraid, very afraid, since it appears that the extreme right wing won this round and who knows what kind of right wing freak he'll nominate now.

Stephistan, it is rare that you and I agree on politics. In this case though, I agree with you 100%.

I'm surprised that not more people are talking about this today. Perhaps because she was such a bad choice people are indifferent to her withdrawal. However, I'd now say, be afraid, very afraid, since it appears that the extreme right wing won this round and who knows what kind of right wing freak he'll nominate now. All I can do is thank my lucky stars that I live in Canada.
I don't think this surpises anyone. I had thought that she'd last through the weekend, but I was a little too optimistic.

Now that Harriet Miers is going to remain Bush's Cleaning Lady in the White House, Bush will pick another Neo-Con that he and his handlers can ALL agree on.
This won't come out for a long time, if ever, but I wonder how many were asked and said 'No' before Miers finally agreed to be nominated.

This won't come out for a long time, if ever, but I wonder how many were asked and said 'No' before Miers finally agreed to be nominated.
Apparently, everyone on the short list. And apparently, they all said no for the same reason. The horrific nature of the approval process. According to a recent NPR story on Miers' nomination, all rejected the nomination based on what the process would do to their families, and how the actual process would be a public spectacle.

Stephistan, it is rare that you and I agree on politics. In this case though, I agree with you 100%.

I mean I'd agree she didn't have the experience one would expect a nominated SCOTUS to have. However no moderate conservatives spoke out against her. In fact moderates such as Orin Hatch and other Republicans said they thought she'd do a good job. However if you had heard Ann Coulter on CNN this morning and if what she is spouting is true, then look out freedoms!

The theory being that there are the pragmatist conservative or realistic moderates, and then as Coulter described them, the "Movement conservatives" which we tend to call the radical right, which Annie belongs to. She is claiming victory for the fringe radicals (of course that is not what she calls herself, but we do know better) I guess we'll just have to wait and see, although I do hope for my neighbours to the south that it won't be too painful given these are life time appointments.

Apparently, everyone on the short list. And apparently, they all said no for the same reason. The horrific nature of the approval process. According to a recent NPR story on Miers' nomination, all rejected the nomination based on what the process would do to their families, and how the actual process would be a public spectacle.

And that is a crime shame. The Judiciary is supposed to be respected and we aren't even respecting the nomination and confirmation process. No wonder I hate the media.

I mean I'd agree she didn't have the experience one would expect a nominated SCOTUS to have. However no moderate conservatives spoke out against her. In fact moderates such as Orin Hatch and other Republicans said they thought she'd do a good job. However if you had heard Ann Coulter on CNN this morning and if what she is spouting is true, then look out freedoms!

You and I both have a distaste for Ann Coulter. Another thing we can agree on. Your right. No moderate ever spoken out against her. Even some democrats whom I expected to denounce her didn't. All condemnation came from the extreme Right Wing of the Republican Party. Grrrr.... Those morons need to shut up.

The theory being that there are the pragmatist conservative or realistic moderates, and then as Coulter described them, the "Movement conservatives" which we tend to call the radical right, which Annie belongs to.

And one reason why I don't like Ann Coulter. Don't get me wrong! I'm a firm believer in the Constitution and I would love it to be strictly interpreted but she and the people like her would interprete in such a way that it'll render it meaningless.

She is claiming victory for the fringe radicals (of course that is not what she calls herself, but we do know better) I guess we'll just have to wait and see, although I do hope for my neighbours to the south that it won't be too painful given these are life time appointments.

I agree 100%.

This won't come out for a long time, if ever, but I wonder how many were asked and said 'No' before Miers finally agreed to be nominated.
Probably few or none, because Bush seems to make up his "mind" on the spot. But that would be a fun list.

The extreme right won't be satisfied until Rome falls.

The extreme right won't be satisfied until Rome falls.

You know, I heard so many conservatives say the same thing about Clinton and the Democrats during his tenure (OMFG! It's the end of civilization as we know it! The jack booted thugs are coming for us!).

Now the tinfoil hats are on other people's heads.

You know, I heard so many conservatives say the same thing about Clinton and the Democrats during his tenure (OMFG! It's the end of civilization as we know it! The jack booted thugs are coming for us!).

Now the tinfoil hats are on other people's heads.
When you see the Democrats advocating regression in every field imaginable, then you can continue your partisan huffing and puffing. Until then, go blow down a brick wall.

When you see the Democrats advocating regression in every field imaginable, then you can continue your partisan huffing and puffing. Until then, go blow down a brick wall.

Ah, you mean like using Federal agents to shoot an unarmed woman who is holding a baby in the throat, and then trapping the rest of her family in her house with the dead body for three days? And then rewarding the man who shot the woman with a cushy new job and a promotion?

This is one hell of an opportunity... Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid were out there this morning moaning about how the "extreme" rightists killed Miers.. scared much? :p I was lukewarm on Miers.. not happy to see her go, but not upset.. if Bush nominates Brown or Luttig or any other solid conservative, he'll have his base back in no time.

This is one hell of an opportunity... Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid were out there this morning moaning about how the "extreme" rightists killed Miers.. scared much? :p I was lukewarm on Miers.. not happy to see her go, but not upset.. if Bush nominates Brown or Luttig or any other solid conservative, he'll have his base back in no time.

Both would serve as another Thomas or Scalia, this of course would be the radicals dream to turn SCOTUS back to the 18th century, but don't you value your right to choose and make decisions about your life by yourself? Or do you advocate that the court should do that for you? Freedom means being free to choose at every level of your life as long as you're not hurting anyone. This means about your body, your religion or lack thereof, etc, etc. You get as right wing zealot in there, kiss those freedoms good-bye.

Both would serve as another Thomas or Scalia, this of course would be the radicals dream to turn SCOTUS back to the 18th century, but don't you value your right to choose and make decisions about your life by yourself? Or do you advocate that the court should do that for you? Freedom means being free to choose at every level of your life as long as you're not hurting anyone. This means about your body, your religion or lack thereof, etc, etc. You get as right wing zealot in there, kiss those freedoms good-bye.
That's exactly what I expect from the Court. Freedom from the federal government and the protections that the Constitution guarantee. Let the states decide how to run themselves and how to make the decisions that are theirs to make. The federal government should be so small, that it should never even be noticed. That's where I want a court to take us.

Ah, you mean like using Federal agents to shoot an unarmed woman who is holding a baby in the throat, and then trapping the rest of her family in her house with the dead body for three days? And then rewarding the man who shot the woman with a cushy new job and a promotion?
You could compete with Ann Coulter for the Nobel Prize for Partisan Demagoguery. Are you sure you arn't Ann Coulter?

Your "Neocon Flashback Moment" was entirely irrelevant to what I had said.

Both would serve as another Thomas or Scalia, this of course would be the radicals dream to turn SCOTUS back to the 18th century, but don't you value your right to choose and make decisions about your life by yourself? Or do you advocate that the court should do that for you? Freedom means being free to choose at every level of your life as long as you're not hurting anyone. This means about your body, your religion or lack thereof, etc, etc. You get as right wing zealot in there, kiss those freedoms good-bye.

Different definitions of freedom, I guess... I take Scalia's side quite often, so I can only hope for a Brown or Luttig.. recent cases on Eminent Domain and the death penalty are good examples why.. Freedom to me would prohibit the government from confiscating your land for economic purposes, rather than the public good or safety issues.. Freedom to me would mean NOT voting in U.S. elections only to have our Supreme Court justices throw out the policies I voted for on the basis of foreign laws that I had no say in. And yes, freedom to me includes the right to hunt and/or own a handgun.. Freedom from sweeping government power under the Commerce clause and the Equal Protection clause is perhaps the most important of all, and we can thank Scalia in part for U.S. vs. Morrison, which rolled back that power significantly.. I feel more free when the govenment can't smash theirr fist through anything even tangentially related to commerce. I'd take 9 Scalias.

You could compete with Ann Coulter for the Nobel Prize for Partisan Demagoguery. Are you sure you arn't Ann Coulter?
Are you saying that Lon Horiuchi was perfectly entitled to shoot an unarmed woman holding a baby, and then get promoted for it?

I applaud your jack-booted thuggery! Why didn't you vote for Bush?

Different definitions of freedom, I guess... I take Scalia's side quite often, so I can only hope for a Brown or Luttig.. recent cases on Eminent Domain and the death penalty are good examples why.. Freedom to me would prohibit the government from confiscating your land for economic purposes, rather than the public good or safety issues.. Freedom to me would mean NOT voting in U.S. elections only to have our Supreme Court justices throw out the policies I voted for on the basis of foreign laws that I had no say in. And yes, freedom to me includes the right to hunt and/or own a handgun.. Freedom from sweeping government power under the Commerce clause and the Equal Protection clause is perhaps the most important of all, and we can thank Scalia in part for U.S. vs. Morrison, which rolled back that power significantly.. I feel more free when the govenment can't smash theirr fist through anything even tangentially related to commerce. I'd take 9 Scalias.
Public good is an entirely subjective issue. No one knows what the Framers intended, any sort of rooster-crowing about how they support what the Framer's actually meant and oppose "judicial activism" are supporting judicial activism, as long as they agree with the outcome. You learn from the past so you don't repeat it. You do not repeat the past just to do it.

if Bush nominates Brown or Luttig or any other solid conservative, he'll have his base back in no time.

I'm not familiar with Luttig, but if Brown is your idea of a "solid conservative", I am rather afraid for the future. She is little miss legislate-from-the-bench herself.

Public good is an entirely subjective issue. No one knows what the Framers intended, any sort of rooster-crowing about how they support what the Framer's actually meant and oppose "judicial activism" are supporting judicial activism, as long as they agree with the outcome. You learn from the past so you don't repeat it. You do not repeat the past just to do it.
Wrong again. It's clear what was intended. They wrote about it for months. Fortunately for us, it was all published in the Federalist papers.

Public good is an entirely subjective issue. No one knows what the Framers intended, any sort of rooster-crowing about how they support what the Framer's actually meant and oppose "judicial activism" are supporting judicial activism, as long as they agree with the outcome. You learn from the past so you don't repeat it. You do not repeat the past just to do it.

Sure, public good is subjective. But selling someone's land without their consent to the highest bidder for purely economic reasons doesn't really fit in my parameters for just action. That's what the decision allows, not coincidentally, but in the language. This is the same crap we had with Cumulative Effect.. if the government can sell your land to a wealthier man and make a dollar's profit, that dollar could be spent on schools! or hospitals! See? Public good! I'm not saying state governments are going to do this, but why give them the power and make it possible? That's all I'm saying and, yes, I'm judging Scalia on his decisions, rather than his overall philosophy, which isn't really consistent, I'll admit.

Are you saying that Lon Horiuchi was perfectly entitled to shoot an unarmed woman holding a baby, and then get promoted for it?

I applaud your jack-booted thuggery! Why didn't you vote for Bush?
Now which logical fallacy is this? I seem to forget. It is the one where they throw around totally off-topic emotional appeals to convince their position is correct.

I will not play into your Ann Coulter-channeling hands. Stay on topic. When the Democrats support regression supported by the neocons (ie. legislating moral values, removing the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights for "protectionary" reasons, etc), then you can huff and puff until you are blue in the face. Hell, you might actually blow something down.

Now which logical fallacy is this? I seem to forget. It is the one where they throw around totally off-topic emotional appeals to convince their position is correct.

I will not play into your Ann Coulter-channeling hands. Stay on topic. When the Democrats support regression supported by the neocons (ie. legislating moral values, removing the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights for "protectionary" reasons, etc), then you can huff and puff until you are blue in the face. Hell, you might actually blow something down.

Hmmm.. removing my individual right to keep and bear arms for "protectionary" reasons - I seem to recall that was an idea put forth by Feinstein and Schumer - to repeal the Second Amendment on purpose...

Hmmm.. removing my individual right to keep and bear arms for "protectionary" reasons - I seem to recall that was an idea put forth by Feinstein and Schumer - to repeal the Second Amendment on purpose...

To be fair, the Second Amendment is taken with a grain of salt by almost everyone. It states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." No one I know agrees with the literal meaning of this statement, everyone want's some infringment on the right to keep and bear arms. (There are very good reasons why we don't let private citizens or corperations purchase nuclear weapons.) The only question is, where do you draw the line of infringment?

Hmmm.. removing my individual right to keep and bear arms for "protectionary" reasons - I seem to recall that was an idea put forth by Feinstein and Schumer - to repeal the Second Amendment on purpose...
Have you been fishing recently? Your cooler is full of red herrings.

The Second Ammendment's definition is controversial as is. Who advocated removal of firearms? No one. Who advocates adding extra "restrictions" that make firearms safer? Anyone not obsessed with firearms.

Why should you care if you are required to register your weapons and keep them locked up? If the government went around forcibly removing everone's firearms, then letting everyone come up and get their firearms back (ones they actually own and didn't steal) and in the process registering those firearms and getting a trigger lock or whatever the deuce those things are that are put in there; I would feel much safer.

Have you been fishing recently? Your cooler is full of red herrings.

The Second Ammendment's definition is controversial as is. Who advocated removal of firearms? No one. Who advocates adding extra "restrictions" that make firearms safer? Anyone not obsessed with firearms.

Why should you care if you are required to register your weapons and keep them locked up? If the government went around forcibly removing everone's firearms, then letting everyone come up and get their firearms back (ones they actually own and didn't steal) and in the process registering those firearms and getting a trigger lock or whatever the deuce those things are that are put in there; I would feel much safer.

Schumer and Feinstein want to introduce a bill to repeal the Second Amendment to ensure that no court in the future might be tempted to enshrine it as an individual right. The bill also includes language to make all firearms of any type illegal.

Schumer brags that as soon as the Democrats have the majority, he'll introduce it.

Anyhow, the key to this whole Miers mess is that, yesterday, the debate was between conservatives and other conservatives, whereas tomorrow, should Bush appoint a real conservative, the debate will be between conservatives and liberals, like it should be. When we fight each other, we never win.. when we rally around a nominee and stand on principle, we keep the real enemy in our crosshairs and regain the confidence of 2004, 2002, 2000, etc. The infighting accomplished nothing.

Anyhow, the key to this whole Miers mess is that, yesterday, the debate was between conservatives and other conservatives, whereas tomorrow, should Bush appoint a real conservative, the debate will be between conservatives and liberals, like it should be. When we fight each other, we never win.. when we rally around a nominee and stand on principle, we keep the real enemy in our crosshairs and regain the confidence of 2004, 2002, 2000, etc. The infighting accomplished nothing.
The Republican party has a ton of fighting to come. See, there are currrently a whole bunch of people who identify as Republican but who are disgusted with tax-and-spend anti-conservative economics and invasive federal theocracy. On the other hand, the other section of the GOP is the Party Of Dobson, who care nothing for real conservative values (like reducing government interference in private life, fiscal responsibility, etc) and who are only concerned with making sure the poor stay poor and that nobody ever has The Sex. If Bush appoints an actual conservative, the religious fringe will pitch a fit because a real conservative will never support their agenda...and the fringe has already killed one of Bush's appointments...

On a side note, I don't understand how "tax and spend" is a bad thing. If you are going to be spending, taxing is the logical method of income acquirement. Spend and spend sounds like much more of a problem to me.

On a side note, I don't understand how "tax and spend" is a bad thing. If you are going to be spending, taxing is the logical method of income acquirement. Spend and spend sounds like much more of a problem to me.

"Tax and Spend" is only a bad thing for those wonderful people who are too obsessed with themselves to realise that a lot of people really do need government aid in this lovely system of ours.

All the better, then. These people don't deserve 100% of "their" money if they don't give a fuck about the less fortunate.

On a side note, I don't understand how "tax and spend" is a bad thing. If you are going to be spending, taxing is the logical method of income acquirement. Spend and spend sounds like much more of a problem to me.

Tax and spend=increase taxes and then spend more than comes in, to fund everything on every liberal's wish list...

Correct economic policy should be
decrease taxes, then give the resulting increased revenues back to the people, while decreasing the size of federal government to encompass only its essential constitutionally mandated functions...

We really need to elect an economic libertarian.;)

On a side note, I don't understand how "tax and spend" is a bad thing. If you are going to be spending, taxing is the logical method of income acquirement. Spend and spend sounds like much more of a problem to me.
Oh, let me be clear: I don't think the CONCEPT of tax-and-spend is a bad one, because I think it's reasonable to spend only as much money as you can bring in. However, the Republican party gained much of its present-day momentum off of an essentially "libertarian" platform (make government smaller so we can cut taxes)...and the people who supported them for those reasons are (rightfully) disgusted with Bush's catastrophic economic plans.

Don't get your hopes up.

The only reason that Miers was nominated in the first place is because every potential nominee on the short list apparently refuses to take part in the "process".

To the very last person, they all indicated that the process of approval had little to do with judicial competence, and everything to do with being vindictive and abusive. None would put their own families through it.

When the "approval" process involves news media digging through everything in your private life that is unrelated to judicial activity, including your children's adoption paperwork, and the media finds it must comment bitterly about the clothes your children are wearing, then you aren't going to find too many people of any political persuasion who want to go through with the "approval" process.

I might add that inane questions that require a nominee to absolutely promise which way they'll rule on particular political issues (rather than individual cases on an individual basis) are a further deterrent to a competent nominee.

It's hard enough to get anyone of competence to run for President, given the black eye that even the loser's family will get. Forget trying to get someone decent to sit through the approval process for Supreme Court justice.

Pfft.

You don't get a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful jobs in the world without heavy scrutiny. It is not particularly worse now than it has been historically.

Lifetime appointments should get even closer scrutiny than short-term elected officials.

Many great men and women -- including those currently on the Court --survived the "process."

Your whining sounds like sour grapes.

Tax and spend=increase taxes and then spend more than comes in, to fund everything on every liberal's wish list...

Correct economic policy should be
decrease taxes, then give the resulting increased revenues back to the people, while decreasing the size of federal government to encompass only its essential constitutionally mandated functions...

We really need to elect an economic libertarian.;)
We need a libertarian in general, though not one of the American version of libertarian...American libertarians are a scary breed :P. I'd love to see us return to the original plan of minimal federal government interference in both economic and social spheres.

Pfft.

You don't get a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful jobs in the world without heavy scrutiny. It is not particularly worse now than it has been historically.

Lifetime appointments should get even closer scrutiny than short-term elected officials.

Many great men and women -- including those currently on the Court --survived the "process."

Your whining sounds like sour grapes.

I don't mind if they scrutinize the nominee but leave the family alone.

Ah, you mean like using Federal agents to shoot an unarmed woman who is holding a baby in the throat, and then trapping the rest of her family in her house with the dead body for three days? And then rewarding the man who shot the woman with a cushy new job and a promotion?

1. Irrelevant example as no one "advocated" that happen. It was a tragedy all around.

2. There is a tad more to the story. Like the woman and her family being what we would now call armed internal terrorists.

That's exactly what I expect from the Court. Freedom from the federal government and the protections that the Constitution guarantee. Let the states decide how to run themselves and how to make the decisions that are theirs to make. The federal government should be so small, that it should never even be noticed. That's where I want a court to take us.

So repeal 200 years of history and the 14th Amendment.

Cute.

In a way, I hope he does. I hope he forces the Republicans out there to realize their party is being run by religious extremists. I hope he picks somebody so radical that the Democrats overcome their chronic spinelessness long enough to block the nominee...or, even better, that Republicans wake the hell up and join the Democrats in blocking the Talibangelists from stacking SCOTUS with fundamentalist wackjobs.

The funny thing is what little record she had indicated that Miers was a wolf in sheep's clothing -- she was a Talibangelist.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

So repeal 200 years of history and the 14th Amendment.

Cute.
I think correcting two hundred years of history is more like it. I'd like to see the states with the powers that they were granted. A properly ratified amendment is much more valid than a capricious decision by a court. In fact, it is part of the Constitution, isn't it?

Throwing in this little diversion should embarrass you. In fact, we just went through the dismantling of this amendment, where it concerns due process, didn't we? The restraining order thing?

The funny thing is what little record she had indicated that Miers was a wolf in sheep's clothing -- she was a Talibangelist.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.
The alternate view, not mine in this case, is that the President is entitled to nominate anyone he chooses. The Senate has the job of giving advice and consent, but it's really up to the President who should fill vacancies. So following that view, Miers shouldn't have been badgered into withdrawing her name from consideration. She should have been left alone and gone through the confirmation process and let the Senate 'Bork' her, not the media. Will this intimidation be known as 'Mierizing', now?

I think correcting two hundred years of history is more like it. I'd like to see the states with the powers that they were granted. A properly ratified amendment is much more valid than a capricious decision by a court. In fact, it is part of the Constitution, isn't it?

Throwing in this little diversion should embarrass you. In fact, we just went through the dismantling of this amendment, where it concerns due process, didn't we? The restraining order thing?

1. You are still ignoring the 14th Amendment changed the original Constitution.

2. Gee, is there a difference between thinking SCOTUS got 1 case wrong (or 10 or 20 etc) and thinking that almost every case for 225 years is wrong?

The alternate view, not mine in this case, is that the President is entitled to nominate anyone he chooses. The Senate has the job of giving advice and consent, but it's really up to the President who should fill vacancies. So following that view, Miers shouldn't have been badgered into withdrawing her name from consideration. She should have been left alone and gone through the confirmation process and let the Senate 'Bork' her, not the media. Will this intimidation be known as 'Mierizing', now?

1. It is Republicans that forced her to withdraw her name. So they "Mierized" their own side.

2. The President is entitled to nominated anyone he chooses. The Senate is entitled to reject anyone they don't like.

I wouldve much preffered Harriet Miers to the possibilties presented by her withdrawal. Now we might get some pro-torture nutjob who doesnt believe in the principle of habeas corpus and supports secret detentions with the suspension of not just civil rights but human rights (ie. Alberto Gonzales).

1. You are still ignoring the 14th Amendment changed the original Constitution.

2. Gee, is there a difference between thinking SCOTUS got 1 case wrong (or 10 or 20 etc) and thinking that almost every case for 225 years is wrong?
Come on. Every amendment changes the Constitution. Any court decision that isn't in agreement with the Constitution that exists at the time is certainly a bad one. Good decisions judge laws as they conform to the Constitution. Bad decisions give new and unintended meanings to the law.

An amendment that takes power from the states and gives it to the federal government might not be desirable, but it is at least accepted by representatives of the governed. A court decision that takes power from the states and gives it to the federal government, or one that abdicates a defined responsibility of the federal government, for that matter, isn't made by similar representatives.

Tax and spend=increase taxes and then spend more than comes in, to fund everything on every liberal's wish list...
So you are creating a cliche that sounds perfectly benign then adding more depth than should exist to a phrase your side created. Now if that isn't commitment to deception I don't know what is.

I'd love to see us return to the original plan of minimal federal government interference in both economic and social spheres.
Impossible. Period. That is undoing decades upon decades upon decades of already established federal and state powers. Returning to the past just to do it is not something people should even consider. You think we should go back to practically the day the US government was formed in terms of policy. Great, but stop pretending it will happen or that it is even remotely feasible.

Good decisions judge laws as they conform to the Constitution. Bad decisions give new and unintended meanings to the law.
I already addressed why that is bullshit cock-crowing. Bad decisions are what? Decisions you consider not conforming to the original meaning of the Constitution? How do you know the original meaning of the Constitution? Really? Do you? Do you know personally every single person who threw their input into its creation? If you don't, you have no right to strut around claiming your beliefs are right because that is what the Constitution says.

On a side note, I don't understand how "tax and spend" is a bad thing. If you are going to be spending, taxing is the logical method of income acquirement. Spend and spend sounds like much more of a problem to me.
It's a term from before your time. It is a jibe at the income redistribution schemes that used to be the sole property of the Democratic party.

1. Irrelevant example as no one "advocated" that happen. It was a tragedy all around.

2. There is a tad more to the story. Like the woman and her family being what we would now call armed internal terrorists.

If you call people who did their best to stay out of society, and the husband was badgered by an undercover agent into sawing the barrel off of a shotgun "terrorist".

The woman had nothing to do with it, and was not wanted for any crime.

Tad more? I guess you forgot who won millions of dollars for the wrong that was done.

1. You are still ignoring the 14th Amendment changed the original Constitution.

2. Gee, is there a difference between thinking SCOTUS got 1 case wrong (or 10 or 20 etc) and thinking that almost every case for 225 years is wrong?

No need to go back to the 14th Amendment itself. The Court just needs to overturn the Lochner decision.

No need to go back to the 14th Amendment itself. The Court just needs to overturn the Lochner decision.

Lochner was overturned in 1937.