| Author |
Message |
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
 Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:02 am Bush picks Harriet Miers for Supreme Court |
|
| Quote: | Bush picks Harriet Miers for Supreme Court
WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush has chosen Harriet Miers, White House counsel and a loyal member of the president's inner circle, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court, a senior administration official said Monday.
If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court.
Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.
Without a judicial record, it's difficult to know whether Miers would dramatically move the court to the right. She would fill the shoes of O'Connor, a swing voter on the court for years who has cast deciding votes on some affirmative action, abortion and death penalty cases.
Low-profile nominee
Known for thoroughness and her low-profile, Miers is one of the first staff members to arrive at the White House in the morning and among the last to leave.
When Bush named her White House counsel in November 2004, the president described Miers as a lawyer with keen judgment and discerning intellect -- "a trusted adviser on whom I have long relied for straightforward advice."
Miers has been leading the White House effort to help Bush choose nominees to the Supreme Court, so getting the nod herself duplicates a move that Bush made in 2000 when he tapped the man leading his search committee for a vice presidential running mate -- Dick Cheney.
In nominating Miers, conservatives 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.
"Harriet Miers is a top-notch lawyer who understands the limited role that judges play in our society," said Noel Francisco, former assistant White House counsel and deputy assistant attorney general during the Bush administration. "In nominating Ms. Miers, the president has reaffirmed his commitment to appointing judges who will respect the rule of law and not legislate from the bench."
Intense questioning ahead
Liberals say the White House should be prepared for Miers to be peppered with questions during her Senate confirmation because she has no record.
"Choosing somebody who is not a judge would put that much more of a premium on straight answers to questions because there would be that much less for senators and the public to go on when looking at such a nominee's judicial philosophy," says Elliot Mincberg, counsel with the liberal People for the American Way.
The Supreme Court meets for nine months a year. Its first week will be shorter than usual, with justices hearing two cases Monday -- one that asks if companies must pay for workers' time spent changing into uniforms, and a second that questions whether states may tax fuel sold on Indian reservations.
Justices were not meeting Tuesday because of the Jewish holiday Rosh Hashanah. The two cases Wednesday include a Bush administration appeal over Oregon's physician assisted-suicide law and a case that will clarify how parents of disabled children can contest education services.
Later this year, several significant cases will be argued, including a review of a parental notification law from New Hampshire and an appeal involving a claim that an anti-abortion group's protests violated federal racketeering laws.
Another high-profile case asks if the government can withhold federal funds from colleges that bar military recruiters in protest of the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuality.
� 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
|
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:18 pm |
|
Meh, I think she's a fine choice. She believes that the law is the law and its there to protect people, and if it doesn't protect people then its a bad law. I think thats an excelent way to look at it.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:21 pm |
|
I think he could've made a far better choice...like, maybe, someone with a more known record. She might turn out to be alright...but the choice is rather...odd. I wouldn't have done it, anyway.
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:32 pm |
|
She is a terrible choice because she has no judicial experience for she was never a judge and nothing more but President Bushs lawyer. Funny how President Bush only picks people who worked for him now for these kinds of jobs. I would pick Judge Andrew Napolitano at Fox News for Supreme Court anyday over this lady with no exprience as a judge. 
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:44 pm |
|
It does kind of bother me that she doesn't have any experience that is expected with the job. Experience is a good thing
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:47 pm |
|
Some people would say it's a good thing. Harry Reid and Schumer are happy.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:29 pm |
|
What judge does have "judicial experience" when first elected or appointed?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:44 pm |
|
It may be her first but, she has to get experience somehow. She can't do it by just standing there lol 
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Tue Oct 04, 2005 2:04 pm |
|
I read a little bit about her in the paper. And before anyone get on me about this, I'm fine with people in the court having very strong religous beliefs, but it bothered the heck out of me that she was wearing a very blatent cross in all of the pictures on the papers this morning.
Just...rubs me the wrong way.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue Oct 04, 2005 2:38 pm |
|
| TrekkieMage wrote: | I read a little bit about her in the paper. And before anyone get on me about this, I'm fine with people in the court having very strong religous beliefs, but it bothered the heck out of me that she was wearing a very blatent cross in all of the pictures on the papers this morning.
Just...rubs me the wrong way. |
Yeah, we can't have people expressing Freedom of Religion. Thats bad!
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Tue Oct 04, 2005 2:49 pm |
|
I never said that. Look a the picture (I can't find a good shot of it to post here) she's wearing a fairly large cross around her neck.
It isn't generally considered appropriate for a person who is in her position to be wearing such blatent symbols.
I'm fine with the fact that she taught Sunday school for a while. I'm fine with the fact that she's religious. Belief is a good thing. It's more a matter of what is appropriate rather than what's right or wrong.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:03 pm |
|
I don't mean to put words in your mouth.
It doesn't matter what she wears as long as it does not influence her judgement. You all are worried about it because you see she wears it and think it will influence her.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:24 pm |
|
Founders right, It dont matter what she wears. Untill recently, Corut were filled with symbols of chirstianity, never influinced anyone (er, not all of them) much before
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:33 am Re: Bush picks Harriet Miers for Supreme Court |
|
| Quote: | Bush picks Harriet Miers for Supreme Court
. . .
Justices were not meeting Tuesday because of the Jewish holiday Rosh Hashanah. The two cases Wednesday include a Bush administration appeal over Oregon's physician assisted-suicide law and a case that will clarify how parents of disabled children can contest education services.
|
Why did the Supreme Court not meet on that day? It is not a federal government holiday (I checked). I had to go to work on that day, as did everyone I personally know. My bank was open and my mail was delivered.
If one or more of the justices refrained form working on that day for religious reasons, I can respect that. But I believe they should step down and allow someone more committed to their job, the law, and this country to replace them. Someone who will be available to work on any day the rest of the government is on the job. Even Supreme Court judges are civil servants, and I help pay their salary.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:15 pm Re: Bush picks Harriet Miers for Supreme Court |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | Quote: | Bush picks Harriet Miers for Supreme Court
. . .
Justices were not meeting Tuesday because of the Jewish holiday Rosh Hashanah. The two cases Wednesday include a Bush administration appeal over Oregon's physician assisted-suicide law and a case that will clarify how parents of disabled children can contest education services.
|
Why did the Supreme Court not meet on that day? It is not a federal government holiday (I checked). I had to go to work on that day, as did everyone I personally know. My bank was open and my mail was delivered.
If one or more of the justices refrained form working on that day for religious reasons, I can respect that. But I believe they should step down and allow someone more committed to their job, the law, and this country to replace them. Someone who will be available to work on any day the rest of the government is on the job. Even Supreme Court judges are civil servants, and I help pay their salary. |
Your going a bit over the top aren't you
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:18 pm |
|
No, not really. If one or more is Jewish, fine. But if they are taking it off because they want to, when the rest of the country has to work? No.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
lex
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 226
|
| Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:51 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | What judge does have "judicial experience" when first elected or appointed? |
Umm ... well, most judges don't gain their first experience in The Supreme Court. That's a pretty important distinction, you know.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:22 am |
|
I'm skeptical about her. Far and away there were many more more qualified nominees (i.e. Janice Rogers Brown), but Bush chose her. Why? I'm still skeptical about her, like I was in the beginning, but have eased up a bit. I'm giving her a chance to make her piece in the judicial committee. She doesn't have as much credentials and everything as others, so I'm very skeptical. But I think, "Bush made a promise about nominating a Scalia/Thomas justice. He's not a man to go back on his word--so maybe she's really a stealth nominee?"
Now, mind you, I am NOT a conservative that NEEDS a conservative justice. Can it be a liberal justice? No; they're to activist. But I'm fine with a moderate to conservative justice, with conservative originalist being my main hope, and Scalia-Thomas kind of justices being great....
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
