posted
Isn't giving the Supreme Court position to a friend from Texas who has never been a judge before a bit like hiring a FEMA director who doesn't have crisis management experience?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. There have been many, many, many successful SCOTUS justices who have never been judges before.
That said, I'm reserving judgment on her until I know more. But the mere lack of judicial experience is not disqualifying.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stealth candidates have never been good for Republicans in the past. So I’m a bit nervous but hopeful. I realize that 60 isn’t old, but I would have liked to have someone a bit younger too. I was really hoping for Brown.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not really. There have been many, many, many successful SCOTUS justices who have never been judges before.
Glad to hear that Dag. I've been meaning to ask you exactly that all morning, but I've kept forgetting.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Stealth candidates have never been good for Republicans in the past.
See, and here I was hoping she'd be good for the SCOTUS, or better yet, for the country. How narrow-minded of me.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You don't have to go back far to find a justice who was never a judge _ William H. Rehnquist never served on the bench, for instance. The president also mentioned Byron White
posted
According to the NewYorkTimes and ChicagoTribune article preceding Roberts confirmation
quote:only 48 of the 108 people who have served on the Supreme Court were previously sitting judges. Out of the other 60 justices, 25 were practicing lawyers, 9 were attorneys general or deputy attorneys general, 7 held other cabinet positions, 6 were senators, 2 were members of the House of Representatives, 3 were governors, 2 were solicitors general and 2 were law professors.
posted
We've had this conversation a zillion times on this forum, guys, just in the last couple of months. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, the straight line was too hard to resist Besides, Taft had sat on the federal 6thCircuitCourt.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cheer up, Enron probably gave dough to AlGore, and five times as much to Dubya. It's called buying access.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or is it like posting a animal vet to the post overseeing women's health issues?
I will reserve judgement for a bit but the cronyism is starting to stink up the administration enough that even some Republicans are starting to get a whiff (finally). George's personal lawyer and White House counsel. Humph. Has Bush EVER looked farther than the end of his nose for people to nominate? (okay, yes I am sure he has but really...not that often...and he has a knack of putting people into positions they barely qualify for, if at all).
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For all the complaining I see about this, I've yet to see one bit of analysis about whether or not she's qualified.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag do you have any thoughts? I mean, I've never heard of her. Has she argued in front of SCOTUS before? Does she have a background in studying constitutional law? Those are some of the questions I would have about qualifications.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't had time to do any real research yet, but I intend to do some more this evening or tomorrow evening.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
She’s the White House council. Sure she’s qualified. I just hope President Bush knows something about her that the rest of us don’t.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Such as what's in that video of Miers at her law school graduation party? Wow! I didn't even know that people could do that.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those who claimed fighting abortion was the big reason they voted for Bush, who argued it was worth accepting all his questionable neoconservative foreign policy and restrictions of civil liberty in order to get more socially conservative judges in for life, I have to wonder if these nominations might make one think twice about that. Neither Roberts nor Miers look like the sort of conservative hardliner that would shift the court dramatically or vote to overrule Roe v. Wade.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
I’m hopeful still. Plus I heard on the radio that she is an evangelical Christian and a biblical literalist.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me it does. Says that she’ll have a moral authority and not try to legislate from the bench. The law will rule as it’s supposed to, not as Bryer would have it where doing what feels right is how you rule. I’m not saying that she’ll use her faith to make decisions, I’m saying that her faith gives her a foundation that can be trusted and where she takes the bible literally she’ll also take the constitution literally.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jay: To me it does. Says that she’ll have a moral authority and not try to legislate from the bench. The law will rule as it’s supposed to, not as Bryer would have it where doing what feels right is how you rule. I’m not saying that she’ll use her faith to make decisions, I’m saying that her faith gives her a foundation that can be trusted and where she takes the bible literally she’ll also take the constitution literally.
Do you often extrapolate a person's entire character, political philosophy, and future actions from a couple of catch-phrases?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hrm. So your argument then, is that evangelical christians and biblical literalists have more moral authority then any other americans?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me it does. Says that she’ll have a moral authority and not try to legislate from the bench. The law will rule as it’s supposed to, not as Bryer would have it where doing what feels right is how you rule. I’m not saying that she’ll use her faith to make decisions, I’m saying that her faith gives her a foundation that can be trusted and where she takes the bible literally she’ll also take the constitution literally.
There are many people who interpret the Bible literally who think evolution should be taught in school. There are many who think it shouldn't be taught in school. There are many who oppose 10 commandment monuments in courthouses.
That information alone does not tell you her interpretational philosophy.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you often extrapolate a person's entire character, political philosophy, and future actions from a couple of catch-phrases?
Certainly...we all do, all the time.
No one has the time to do real research on all of this... which is why we have the necessary evil of a representative government.
That having been said, Jay, I've seen some horrific excuses for people that are biblical literalists and some amazingly trustworthy ones who aren't remotely Christian. I don't think that's a good predictor.
As C. S. Lewis said, the only thing we can assume about Christianity's affect on people (assuming Christianity is true) is that they are better people with it than they would be without it. It says nothing about how good or bad they may actually *be*.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As C. S. Lewis said, the only thing we can assume about Christianity's affect on people (assuming Christianity is true) is that they are better people with it than they would be without it."
Hrm. I'm not even sure that is logically correct.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, are you seriously going to derail this discussion to argue with me (when I'm taking your side, no less) that a direct impartation of divine grace on a scale that would "save a person from their own sin" wouldn't make someone a better behaved person?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes of course there are going to be exceptions, but I feel more comfortable taking a chance on a literalist then on a feel good type person.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Paul, are you seriously going to derail this discussion to argue with me"
I'll derail any discussion to argue a point I find interesting
That said, I hadn't considered the "grace" angle when making my post. You probably have a point.
"Yes of course there are going to be exceptions, but I feel more comfortable taking a chance on a literalist then on a feel good type person."
Why? Because their politics are more in line with yours? Or because they are more likely to live good lives? If your previous post you implied the latter, but I don't think you can make an objective case for that point.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Yes of course there are going to be exceptions, but I feel more comfortable taking a chance on a literalist then on a feel good type person.
emphasis mine.
Not trying to beat you down, Jay, honest. I just found the phrasing ironically humorous.
Edit: Well, it wasn't *my* point, Paul. That's the double-edged thing about appeals to authority-- you don;t take blame for them, but neither can you really take credit
posted
Yes of course there are going to be exceptions, but I feel more comfortable taking a chance on a literalist then on a feel good type person.
Because as we know those are the only two kinds of people, and everything about them can be defined by those descriptions. Well, I feel better.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To me it does. Says that she’ll have a moral authority and not try to legislate from the bench. The law will rule as it’s supposed to, not as Bryer would have it where doing what feels right is how you rule. I’m not saying that she’ll use her faith to make decisions, I’m saying that her faith gives her a foundation that can be trusted and where she takes the bible literally she’ll also take the constitution literally.
I submit that there is a huge difference between taking the bible literally and taking the constitution literally.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
