posted
"I think the most interesting aspect of this nomination is that it was recommended by Harry Reid."
This doesn't appear to be a confirmed fact. It seems to be an interpretation of Reid's recommending that the white house not necessarily look to someone with previous judicial experience, combined with his statement that so far, her record looks good to him.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admit that I'm not pleased with Bush nominating someone so close to him. After the FEMA fiasco with Brown, we have to ask if his other candidates are actually qualified for the job, or just qualified because Bush likes them. I hope and expect that he treats the Supreme Court as more than a plum job for his friends. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but nominating what appears to be one of his own lawyers makes me very nervous. And not just about her qualifications either--it matters very much to me that the Supreme Court remain independent from the White House. Can Miers stay impartial in regards to a man whom she has worked with closely?
I have a question for Biblical literalists: Do you take Revelation literally? Can there be a literal meaning (letters to specific churches in specific cities) with another, more metaphorical meaning on top (those same letters representing different stages in church history, the interpretation taught at the private Christian school I attended)? Or is the literal meaning the only one?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
PG-- heard a rumor yesterday that Reid suggested Miers. :shrug:
quote:Can there be a literal meaning (letters to specific churches in specific cities) with another, more metaphorical meaning on top (those same letters representing different stages in church history, the interpretation taught at the private Christian school I attended)? Or is the literal meaning the only one?
Who knows? My understanding is that the Apocalypse of St. John is to be taken both literally and metaphorically. Like much of the Bible.
That way, it's easier for believers to craft meaning. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have a question for Biblical literalists: Do you take Revelation literally? Can there be a literal meaning (letters to specific churches in specific cities) with another, more metaphorical meaning on top (those same letters representing different stages in church history, the interpretation taught at the private Christian school I attended)? Or is the literal meaning the only one?
I believe Revelation had meaning for the early church to which it was written and it still has meaning for us today. I think the letters were meant to be read and understood by the churches they were addressed to and they also apply to all Christians today.
I do not believe in literal fulfillment of everything, like Thor said if you take every single verse in the Bible literally I think you are going too far. Apocalyptic imagery is just that - imagery - and while there is certainly meaning there, I don't believe there will be literal horses of the Apocalypse, for example. I think the horses are representative and symbolic instead.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pleae, people. We all know that there's only one right way to interpret the law. Everyone knows exactly what "due process" means. Everyone knows what "cruel and unusual punishment" is. There's no ambiguity anywhere in the constitution or the larger body of law, and anyone who says otherwise is an anarchistic, radical liberal.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it does bother me that she headed the Texas Lottery. Encouraging folks to gamble doesn't seem to be an ethical way to make a living when one knows that lotteries disproportionately attract poorer folk. And that the legalized-lottery payout is far lower than what the (obsoleted by the state lotteries) illegal numbers game operators would have dared.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen several references to there being no legal articles written by Miers from which to discover her opinions, and precious few other avenues besides interview, which I consider so staged as to be near-meaningless. If this turns out to be true, I will oppose her being appointed to the Supreme Court, as her qualifications are hidden.
People who have come up through non-legal routes are a different thing. They have (as far as I know, to a man/woman) been very public figures, and there was much public fodder for the evaluation of their thoughtfulness and general legal philosophy (for instance, someone who generally rejects the rule of human law should not be a SCJ).
But the source of Miers' qualifications can only really be in her legal experience, and if the concrete markers of that experience are either to sparse to evaluate her through, or if most of them are hidden behind demands of privilege from the Bush administration (since her highest experience has been as their counsel), even if they're shown to some or all of Congress, I do not see how she can be appointed to the highest court.
I do not see how anyone could be appointed to the highest court without the public having access to that documentation which shows him or her qualified.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've seen several references to there being no legal articles written by Miers from which to discover her opinions
Every time someone brought up a legal position of Roberts' that he had written, people claimed we couldn't draw any conclusions from it since the stuff was written while he was an attorney for other people. I imagine the same thing would apply with Miers.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's interesting about this whole debate going on is that it may be one of the first times that a politician has been attacked by his own base for seemingly fulfilling a campaign promise. Is Bush the only one that didn't think promising a strict constructionalist and moderate who didn't need to pass any litmus test was secret code for "hard-core conservative who we can prove would certainly vote conservatively on Roe v. Wade and other big social conservative issues"?
And I wish the media, parties, and political activism groups would at least pretend that the role of Supreme Court Justice is still to interpret the law, rather than impose personal ideology on it. Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry - I've had no time to do more research. Some possibilities:
1.) Bush has had detailed talks with her, knows what her views are, and is satisfied she won't change them.
2.) Bush is simply going with the loyalty thing - indulging the same instinct that purportedly made him favor Gonzales, but is picking a candidate with very little record that conservatives can point to.
3.) Bush expects to provoke a filibuster, which will free him to appoint anyone he likes with less backlash. I'm not sure there would be less backlash, but some people seem to think so.
4.) Bush is simply looking to get through this without major battles. Both sides seem kind of perplexed right now and may not be able to muster real opposition. Lukewarm support may be preferable to Bush right now.
If Miers votes in a way that offends the conservative base before the 2006 elections, it could seriously hurt the Republicans. I think Bush knows this (Rove certainly does). I'm not sure Bush really cares, though (Rove certainly does).
in short, I have nothing solid. The primary objections I've heard have not been well-supported, but I haven't seen a positive case for why she should be a SCOTUS justice.
If I had to guess her leanings, based on what I've read third or fourth hand, I'd guess the following:
1.) Deference toward executive power. 2.) Favors Rhenquist/O'Connor type restrictions on commerce clause. 3.) Suspicious of expansions to substantive due process (including privacy). 4.) No guess on changes to existing precedent regarding substantive due process rights. 5.) Fairly textualist in statutory interpretation, with more willingness to seek to find legislators' intent than a Scalia or Easterbrook. However, this will be highly results oriented, mostly in a pro-business stance. 6.) Highly results oriented in matters of constitutional interpretation. 7.) Pro-DOMA. 8.) No firm opinions yet on 4th and 5th amendment, because I doubt she's thought much about it.
All this is HIGHLY speculative, based more on intuition than anything tangible. Basically it's a guess, and I won't be surprised if I'm wrong.
I care far more about the constitutional interpretive methods than the statutory. Bad SCOTUS statutory intepretations can be fixed by Congress; bad constitutional interpretation can't.
The only article I found by her was on unlicensed practice of law when traveling out of state to take depositions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:3.) Bush expects to provoke a filibuster, which will free him to appoint anyone he likes with less backlash. I'm not sure there would be less backlash, but some people seem to think so.
This seems far-fetched. There are so many ways a tactic like that could backfire, I don't think this administration would try it.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking at preliminaries, this is a choice the dems might NOT have to fillibuster in order for it to go down in flames. It seems some republican senators don't like the choice (brownback for eg)
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going with the far-fetched notion, Bush may have chosen a candidate who'll be defeated but be a good martyr, so he can push through a candidate with more legal experience but extremely controversial views.
That's also pretty far-fetched, though.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure its far-fetched, fugu. Bush seems to have found a candidate that pisses off a good number of republicans... and his approval rating is so low (and dropping) that he won't be able to bludgeon anyone into voting for her.
The choice reeks of cronyism, and after Michael Brown, the american public is being very wary of cronyism right now, so expect pressure on senators from their constituents to find out whether she has any qualifications other then being a bush buddy. There's also a strong apparent element of her being a nominee who will increase the power of the executive. Remember the questioning of roberts? A LOT of senators (including republicans) were concerned that he didn't give enough deference to the legislature. What will senators do with a candidate who might further weaken the legislature to benefit the executive?
We'll see what happens. But the conservatives might not fall into line for this candidate... they've already stepped out of line, so now Bush might need to make a positive case for her as SC justice. And that will be very very hard to do, since she has no record.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. First time I've read her stuff. I agree on the wanting someone smart and educated (although, why , for heaven's sake wouldn't you want someone smart and educated for other things!) part, but it was buried in so much general hatefulness that I feel like I need a bath.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
