1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Harriet Meirs to Supreme Court

Discussion in 'The OT' started by pjmrt, Oct 3, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Oct 3, 2005 #1 of 146
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
  2. Oct 3, 2005 #2 of 146
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    I don't know if I'd call her "well qualified." Looking at what data is available, by the same standard ANY lawyer would be well qualified. Given this, I would bet that she's much more likely to be a strong right wing conservative ideologue than Roberts.

    I've yet to see any experience related to the Supreme Court. Reinquist, while also never a judge, did at least clerk there and tried cases there as well.

    What I find is interesting is that she seems to be another personal friend of Bush and long time associate.
     
  3. Oct 3, 2005 #3 of 146
    juan ellitinez

    juan ellitinez Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,981
    0
    Jan 31, 2003
  4. Oct 3, 2005 #4 of 146
    juan ellitinez

    juan ellitinez Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,981
    0
    Jan 31, 2003
  5. Oct 3, 2005 #5 of 146
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    A good pro-business choice, and I believe another moderate Republican. There is likely to be some opposition from the extreme right.
     
  6. Oct 3, 2005 #6 of 146
    greatwhitenorth

    greatwhitenorth Godfather

    360
    0
    Jul 18, 2005
    I was really hoping Bush would step outside the box on this one. He did, but not far enough outside. There is no requirement that a Supreme Court Judge be an attorney or a judge. I would have liked to see someone from outside the legal arena be named, some one with real-life work experience (I know, lawyers work very hard, so no flames here, please). Adding a "civilian" would add a completely different point of view to the Court. Remember the old saying, "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail". To lawyers, every problem is a legal problem.
     
  7. Oct 3, 2005 #7 of 146
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    One thing that the court has traditionally had very little of is attorneys )or judges) with actial litigation exerience other than appellate experience.

    Rather than have someone whose experience is from the court itself I would like to see someone with that experience. But we have the choices we have. I guess we all need to learn about Ms. Miers (odd spelling isn't it).



    jaun your second link does not work.
     
  8. Oct 3, 2005 #8 of 146
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    I think this is a good way to get fresh thinking into the supreme court - not bound by the liberal traditions of the past couple of decades. I think juan's link comments are just political rhetoric - I expect to hear the same from the liberal dems shortly. Bottom line - she's a bit of an unknown (except perhaps to Bush). How will she rule on issues? There are no similar decisions that she's ruled on since she is not a judge. Maybe juan is just upset because Bush might just be one of the more savey presidents of the past 15 years. :D
     
  9. Oct 3, 2005 #9 of 146
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    I got your link to work fianlly Juan. Not sure what was wrong.

    PJ if you think that liberal Democrats are taking their cues from Newsmax and the National review you are mistaken. I would suspect that Juan's talk of impeachment is partially tongue in cheek----but you do realize that he and his sources are all conservative---don't you?
     
  10. Oct 3, 2005 #10 of 146
    bobsupra

    bobsupra Work In Progress DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,295
    0
    Jul 12, 2002
    With no track record to review, it sounds like the President is saying, "Trust Me." I have trouble with that.
     
  11. Oct 3, 2005 #11 of 146
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    She actually contributed money to an early Al Gore campaign. Ironic.
     
  12. Oct 3, 2005 #12 of 146
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    But not the extreme left? Already the moonbats at DailyKos and DemocraticUnderground are calling her a crony, a sycophant, and evil-looking.
     
  13. Oct 3, 2005 #13 of 146
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to solve problems, merely they are to apply the law as it is written in the Constitution.
     
  14. Oct 3, 2005 #14 of 146
    juan ellitinez

    juan ellitinez Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,981
    0
    Jan 31, 2003
    thats conservative supreme court justices
     
  15. Oct 3, 2005 #15 of 146
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    And to review the case law that has become part of the "settled law" (as Chief Justice Roberts calls it).

    The two SCOTUS nominations by Bush both have a strong business law background. I think this is the new message that GWB is trying to out forth. Essentially "its the economy"!

    Conservatives are looking for a reversal of Roe v. Wade. It just isn't going to happen!
     
  16. Oct 3, 2005 #16 of 146
    juan ellitinez

    juan ellitinez Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,981
    0
    Jan 31, 2003
    even more of a reason to impeach bush!!!
     
  17. Oct 3, 2005 #17 of 146
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    And this has what to do with "solving problems?" Unless you mean problems of what law is constitutional and what isn't?
     
  18. Oct 3, 2005 #18 of 146
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Right, because conservatives never have their heads up their butts, huh? Please, spare me.
     
  19. Oct 3, 2005 #19 of 146
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Yes, that is exactly what i mean. Since you come from a Jewish tradition, let me explain it this way. There is a Jewish prohibition against using fire durring the sabbath. Modern Orthodoxy has interpreted that to now include the use of electricity and powered transportation which didn't exist during the time of the Talmud.

    So the SCOTUS by its very nature has to dissect modern issues and relate them to not only the Constituion, but the previous SCOTUS decisions that form the body of Constitutional Law. Sometimes they can find an error in that body of law, but the vast majority of decisions will uphold the previous ones.
     
  20. Oct 3, 2005 #20 of 146
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Sorry, but I can't agree with juan's original opinion of the matter. Based on what I've seen and heard (thus very limited), my first impression is that she's going to be an extreme right wing ideologue. The brief comment she made about looking at the founder's intent is very much like Scalia in interpretation.

    Of course I do find the National Review article interesting, written by someone who supposedly worked under her. He doesn't say she's not a conservative, but derides her nervous and "unsteely" personality.

    And to top it off, the excessive eye makeup reminds me of Katherine Harris :lol:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page