Of course, when choosing a nominee to the supreme court, it's important that...

[tenguzero]

...they bring Jesus-power to the bench

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051012/..._court_bush_dc

Because NO ONE wants the nominee to be the best person for the job. This is why there's so much that's screwed up with the system right now -- the politicians are all so busy trying to find the perfect puzzle-piece to fit a vacant position, when they should be choosing the best person for the job. Preferably someone the American public at least has a somewhat favorable opinion about.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051013/pl_nm/bush_poll_dc

46% of voters "don't know enough about her"? That just goes to show how far this administration has gone in alienating the American public. Even if that poll is skewed by 10% -- which number do you want to go with, 56% or 36%? That's an awful lot of people with no stance on their president's personal nominee for THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND.

[fredjacksonsan]

She may end up doing a superb job, however it bothers me that the president has nominated someone that has been one of his staunchest supporters and staff members for years.

[Mustangman25]

Agreed. Regardless of her "qualifications" (I would really like the new Justice's appointment to Justice not be the first time that they've been a judge) nominating one of his cronnies withing weeks of the disaster that was Micheal Brown was not exactly a bright idea. One thing's for sure...her confirmation won't be the cakewalk that Roberts' was.

[fredjacksonsan]

Yeah, she's got no experience -none- as a judge, and she's nominated for the highest court in the land? Not a good idea, IMO.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Yeah, she's got no experience -none- as a judge, and she's nominated for the highest court in the land? Not a good idea, IMO.

It won't be the first time and it's not a precedent. We had Supreme Court Justices without any bench experience. One major problem with the Federal Judiciary is they are appointed, this includes the US District Court and Appellate Court levels. In comparison, in most states, Judges are duly elected by the people and a lot of them don't have any bench experience either.

BTW - Another interesting note is she was a Democrat who supposedly converted to Republican. Most of the flack is coming from the Conservatives.

[TexasF355F1]

It's an interesting situation, I can't say I support her but I'm not really against her either. She could do a great job. As long as someone starts taking more action against these Child-predators anyone will be fine with me.

[YogsVR4]

I think there are others who are more qualified and I wish he had picked one of them. However, I'll wait until the hearings to see how she responds and change my assesment accordingly.













Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[tenguzero]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I think there are others who are more qualified and I wish he had picked one of them. However, I'll wait until the hearings to see how she responds and change my assesment accordingly.

Agreed. That's pretty much all we CAN do right now, is wait and see. It just seems to me that there's a rather troubling amount of "wait and see" situations as of late. And I don't mean "wait and see" as in wait and see if our actions have had so and so an effect -- I mean "wait and see" as in wait and see what THEY do/decide. How come WE don't have more of a say in what transpires? We are the people, right? Shouldn't we at least be entitled to have our input heard? It seems like every American in the country could be against this particular choice (or any other issue -- take your pick) right now, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. This Miers woman could be the absolute worse choice possible, but we'd just have to sit back and let "Them" hash it out, apparently irregardless of what we think.

There's an awful lot of favoritism, cronieism, and mutual back-scratching going on between between the people who are supposed to represent us, and it's not like it's even happening behind our backs -- they're blatantly doing it out in the open! It's OUR tax dollars funding the war, OUR old-age/disability welfare in question, OUR children making their way through the school systems, and OUR lives being directly affected by the decisions handed down through the court system, starting with this -- the highest court of them all.

[BNaylor]

Personally, I think she is a wolf in sheep's clothing. There is a high probability if she survives the approval process that somewheres down the road she will help overturn Roe v. Wade and change the anti- discrimination employment/labor laws more in favor of the employer.

And the liberals are just standing on the sidelines eating popcorn? Everyone is in for a rude awakening if she ever becomes a US Supreme Court Justice.

Just my 2 cents.

[thrasher]

Roe v. Wade will never be overturned, it would be a slap in the face to those who have come before her...the precedent is too strong on the issue.

I am somewhat disappointed in Mr. Bush for choosing her, but as Yogs said we really have to wait and see before making judgement. I can only hope she is grilled at the confirmation hearings such that there is no more guessing on the stance(s) she will take on important upcoming issues.

[tenguzero]

My roommate was telling me that he heard an interesting comment on the radio or something last week. The topic was the Miers nomination, and how the Dems, if they really wanted to fly in the face of Bush, would take a different approach to their interview process in respect to Miers. Instead of (in a predictable way) asking her about the big, well-known trials, they would actually do some research and ask her about the less well known, but still important decisions handed down through court systems that affect us today.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...emeCourtCases/

Everyone knows Roe v. Wade. But how about some of the other important Supreme Court cases handled? As a lawyer with so much experience, I would think she'd be well educated on at least some of these trials.

Right?

[fredjacksonsan]

She should be familiar with them. Good angle on confirmation.

[BNaylor]

She can't do any worse (or can she) than what the current US Supreme Court has already done to our EEOC-Discrimination, Civil Rights, Workers' Compensation and ERISA laws. But she has a past history of supporting big business and the employer.

NBC news reported yesterday that she had filled out a questionaire in the past when running for some political office in Dallas regarding her stance on abortion. Based on her answers she is "pro-life".

On the issue of Roe v. Wade ever getting overturned "Never say never".

[BNaylor]

The issue of Miers has been settled. She has withdrawn.

[fredjacksonsan]

This wasn't completely unexpected. Got a link?

She may be an excellent advisor, but....