O'Connor replacement named.

[kallend 2,112]

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1809402,00.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BillyVance 34]

Now that's the real Ming the Merciless from Flash Gordon! (your avatar)

I just found out about Bush's new pick to replace O'connor... He picked his personal lawyer/attorney? Somehow, I don't think this pick is gonna fly this time. Who knows...

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[IanHarrop 42]

What real chance is there that she will not get confirmed? Isn't it a rare thing for nominees to not be confirmed? I remember the Bork situation but have there been many others?

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[mnealtx 0]

Former personal attorney...and also looks as if it was at least SOMEwhat discussed between both sides of the Senate...

Quote

A senior administration official said that Ms Miers’s name came up in consultations with both Republican and Democratic senators as someone who could win bipartisan support.

The official also said some senators from both parties thought it was important for Mr Bush to pick someone who was not a judge and could offer a different perspective on the job.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out... I imagine the more extreme fringes will be screaming from either side.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

If she was never a judge, then where is the objective evidence based on past rulings that she doesn't allow her personal politics to sway her judicial decisions?

I'm not thrilled here. The Bush statement made more of her being a gender example rather than go into the goal qualification of how she would be non-biased.

The Roberts formula was a good one. Why not just do it again?

In any case, more information and spin will come out soon.

This is a wild card play, not a good idea.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mr2mk1g 10]

Two things I really don't understand about the US legal system.

1) How can someone with no experience on the Supreme Court be appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

2) How can someone with no prior judicial experience be appointed to the Supreme Court?

Over here, judges must have years of experience sitting in the lower courts before they are appointed to our House of Lords and then must have years of experience sitting in the Lords before they stand any chance of being appointed as the Senior Law Lord.

Doing otherwise just seems... well... dumb.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Two things I really don't understand about the US legal system.

1) How can someone with no experience on the Supreme Court be appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

2) How can someone with no prior judicial experience be appointed to the Supreme Court?

It has nothing to do with the legal system...it has more to do with the stupidity of the American people as a whole.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It has nothing to do with the legal system...it has more to do with the stupidity of the American people as a whole.

classy response - I really like the detail of how you intelligently reviewed the nomination requirements (which are not subject to the vote of the American people in any way at all BTW) and how those were determined - balancing the experience of the needs of the positions relative the flexibility of having the option to bring in different perspectives on occasion.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[councilman24 37]

Just ONCE, I'd like a Bush appointment, especially to something like the SCOTUS, to be non-personal. Not a pay back or reward. Not cronyism. Just ONCE I'd like the appointment to be the best person IN THE NATION, not down the hall. For his personal staff, administration political appointments, etc. fine. It comes with winning (damn) to be able to do that. And it comes with winning to be able to appoint SC justices. But, at some point I'd love to see Bush rise just a little higher above the swamp and search out the best. Liberal or conservative, just look a little harder and pick someone FIRST on merit, not FIRST on being a buddy.

Just one more reason, with examples from county to the U.S., that I have little use for partisan politics.

In the interest of full disclosure I'm running for my third term on my NON-partisan City Council.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Well at least she has a law back ground and not one coupled with judging Arabian Horse show disputes....

[mnealtx 0]

Please show how this is a "cronyism" appointment, since the lady in question seems to be well respected by her peers and also seems to enjoy a consensus between the parties as a possible candidate.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[councilman24 37]

Quotes by DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

"Whatever her credentials for the high court, Miers' loyalty to Bush — who once called her a pit bull in size 6 shoes — is above question. When he first decided to run for governor in the early 1990s, he hired Miers to comb his background for anything derogatory that opponents might try to use to defeat him.

Miers also introduced Bush to Alberto Gonzales, who served as Bush's counsel in Austin and later in Washington, before being named U.S. attorney general.

During Bush's first term as governor, Gonzales used information turned up by Miers to persuade a local judge to excuse Bush from jury duty, a civic task that would have forced him to disclose his 1976 arrest for drunken driving in Maine. The incident was not divulged until the waning days of Bush's 2000 campaign for the White House."


"Eager to rebut any charges of cronyism, the White House produced statistics showing that 10 of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933 had worked for the president who picked them. Among them were the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, first tapped for the court by Richard M. Nixon, and Byron White, whose president was John F. Kennedy. "

If anything the above points out that this is NOT the usual.

"Formerly Bush's personal lawyer in Texas, Miers came with the president to the White House as his staff secretary, the person in charge of all the paperwork that crosses the Oval Office desk. Miers was promoted to deputy chief of staff in June 2003."


"When Bush was governor of Texas, she represented him in a case involving a fishing house. In 1995, he appointed her to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission. She also served as a member-at-large on the Dallas City Council and in 1992 became the first woman president of the Texas State Bar."

Obviously she has for most of her career hitched her wagon to Bush. The ulitmate reward? A life time job. And no public record of decisions to examine.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[mnealtx 0]

There is evidently no requirement (that I could find in a quick search) that a Supreme Court nominee be a sitting judge. There is also no requirement that a nominee be someone completely unknown to the President, Vice President, Congress, the meter reader's dog, etc.

It also looks like roughly 1/3 of all Supreme Court Justices appointed in the last 70 years had some sort of connection with the sitting President, and I'm sure an in-depth search could find plenty of appellate court justices that have close ties to Senators. That doesn't make it cronyism.

Questionable? Perhaps, depending on her qualifications.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

There is evidently no requirement (that I could find in a quick search) that a Supreme Court nominee be a sitting judge. There is also no requirement that a nominee be someone completely unknown to the President, Vice President, Congress, the meter reader's dog, etc.

It also looks like roughly 1/3 of all Supreme Court Justices appointed in the last 70 years had some sort of connection with the sitting President, and I'm sure an in-depth search could find plenty of appellate court justices that have close ties to Senators. That doesn't make it cronyism.

Questionable? Perhaps, depending on her qualifications.

Just questionable? His PERSONAL attorney (I couldn't care less if it is FORMER)?

You see choosing a woman who was INTIMATELY involved with the president -- not just knowing him or working along side him, but REPRESENTING HIM -- as just questionable?

This is stupidity at its best. I thought the Robert's confirmation was just fine. This is just retarded.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[IanHarrop 42]

I have been able to answer my own question about the number of supreme court nominees not confirmed.

It doesn't happen very often, so expect this nominee to be confirmed.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/law/notconfirmed.html

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

There is evidently no requirement (that I could find in a quick search) that a Supreme Court nominee be a sitting judge. There is also no requirement that a nominee be someone completely unknown to the President, Vice President, Congress, the meter reader's dog, etc.

It also looks like roughly 1/3 of all Supreme Court Justices appointed in the last 70 years had some sort of connection with the sitting President, and I'm sure an in-depth search could find plenty of appellate court justices that have close ties to Senators. That doesn't make it cronyism.

Questionable? Perhaps, depending on her qualifications.

Just questionable? His PERSONAL attorney (I couldn't care less if it is FORMER)?

You see choosing a woman who was INTIMATELY involved with the president -- not just knowing him or working along side him, but REPRESENTING HIM -- as just questionable?

This is stupidity at its best. I thought the Robert's confirmation was just fine. This is just retarded.

And I'm sure you could play "6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon" against her, too - should that disqualify her as well?

I could give a shit less who she has worked for or who she knows - her qualifications are more important. Will she guage law against the Constitution and current case law, or will she legislate from the bench?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[BillyVance 34]

Well, Roberts actually served as a clerk to one of the supreme court justices, if I remember right, and he has argued many cases as a lawyer before the court, so he knows the way the court works very well. He was a good choice.

After reading a bit more about Miers, it was actually a Democratic senator who suggested her to Bush... she's a very thorough lawyer and low-key as well. She might not be a bad choice either, but her background as Bush's personal lawyer when he was Governor of Texas smacks a bit like cronyism and that is one thing the critics will pounce on. I expect a long, protracted hearing in committee with her and a lot of questions asked about her views...

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[IanHarrop 42]

I've found a site that appears to have good information about all supreme court members.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/justices/

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

There is evidently no requirement (that I could find in a quick search) that a Supreme Court nominee be a sitting judge. There is also no requirement that a nominee be someone completely unknown to the President, Vice President, Congress, the meter reader's dog, etc.

It also looks like roughly 1/3 of all Supreme Court Justices appointed in the last 70 years had some sort of connection with the sitting President, and I'm sure an in-depth search could find plenty of appellate court justices that have close ties to Senators. That doesn't make it cronyism.

Questionable? Perhaps, depending on her qualifications.

Just questionable? His PERSONAL attorney (I couldn't care less if it is FORMER)?

You see choosing a woman who was INTIMATELY involved with the president -- not just knowing him or working along side him, but REPRESENTING HIM -- as just questionable?

This is stupidity at its best. I thought the Robert's confirmation was just fine. This is just retarded.

I call it smart!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

There is evidently no requirement (that I could find in a quick search) that a Supreme Court nominee be a sitting judge. There is also no requirement that a nominee be someone completely unknown to the President, Vice President, Congress, the meter reader's dog, etc.

It also looks like roughly 1/3 of all Supreme Court Justices appointed in the last 70 years had some sort of connection with the sitting President, and I'm sure an in-depth search could find plenty of appellate court justices that have close ties to Senators. That doesn't make it cronyism.

Questionable? Perhaps, depending on her qualifications.

It may not be cronyism, but it sure smells like it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Just ONCE, I'd like a Bush appointment, especially to something like the SCOTUS, to be non-personal. Not a pay back or reward. Not cronyism. Just ONCE I'd like the appointment to be the best person IN THE NATION, not down the hall. For his personal staff, administration political appointments, etc. fine. It comes with winning (damn) to be able to do that. And it comes with winning to be able to appoint SC justices. But, at some point I'd love to see Bush rise just a little higher above the swamp and search out the best. Liberal or conservative, just look a little harder and pick someone FIRST on merit, not FIRST on being a buddy.

Just one more reason, with examples from county to the U.S., that I have little use for partisan politics.

In the interest of full disclosure I'm running for my third term on my NON-partisan City Council.

....and take the chance that he gets something not planned on? Come on now.

I do however wished he would have picked and in your face, documented right wing constructionist and let the battle begin.

Just me though.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Zenister 0]

Quote

- her qualifications are more important. Will she guage law against the Constitution and current case law, or will she legislate from the bench?

you mean her lack of qualifications??? there is no means to measure ANYTHING about her judicial opinion as she has none..

she is completely unqualified. The entire reasoning behind her nomination stems from her relationship to Bush and her gender.

Roberts had at least served as a judge, and has the requisite experience and (however brief it may be) legal record and writing to be reasonable evaluated...

while i believe nominating a 'new' member of the highest court in the land to the position of chief justice is an arsine practice, he at least has served in the primary role he was nominated for.. she has no judicial experience whatsoever..

another fine example of piss poor leadership and policy from the current administration..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[StreetScooby 5]

Absolutely unbelievable. Bush has lost it, or else God is really having fun with him during their daily conversations.

We are all engines of karma

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

And I'm sure you could play "6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon" against her, too - should that disqualify her as well?

I could give a shit less who she has worked for or who she knows - her qualifications are more important. Will she guage law against the Constitution and current case law, or will she legislate from the bench?

This is not 6 degrees. It is one. Bush's PERSONAL lawyer. The woman who represented him. Who was intimately involved in his affairs.

Let me ask you this. And please be honest and take this hypothetical situation on its own merits. If this were Clinton's PERSONAL lawyer and HE had nominated her to the SUPREME COURT for a LIFETIME appointment, what would you say? Would you not question the ethics of putting a woman with no judging experience who fought for the president's sake? Its not like she was JUST some random good lawyer.

I know I would. I would be very very leery. And I am now.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

And I'm sure you could play "6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon" against her, too - should that disqualify her as well?.....

This is not 6 degrees. It is one.

Thank goodness, Kevin Bacon is creepy

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants