Newsworthy?

[Menlaan]

I'm normally a fan of CNN, but even I have to question whether this is really newsworthy:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/11/ ... index.html

Records suggest warm relationship between Bush, Miers

Supreme Court nominee called Bush 'the best governor ever'

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers told George W. Bush in a 1997 birthday card that he was "the best governor ever" and, in a separate note to her boss, said she hoped his twin daughters recognize their parents are "cool."

The communications between Miers, who served as chair of the Texas Lottery Commission, and Bush, then governor of Texas, tell the story of a very warm relationship.

Bush faces criticism that he chose Miers for the high court because of their close friendship.

The correspondence with Bush was among thousands of pages of records released Monday by the Texas state archives from Miers' record as chair of the Texas Lottery Commission from 1995-2000.

A transcript of her confirmation hearing before the state Senate in 1995 indicated that lawmakers asked Miers, an attorney, only a few questions and that her nomination by Bush was generally unopposed.

Miers and Bush exchanged several birthday notes and general well-wishes during her lottery tenure.

In 1997, Miers sent Bush a belated birthday card featuring a sad-looking dog and the note: "Dear Governor GWB, You are the best Governor ever -- deserving of great respect!" She added, "At least for thirty days -- you are not younger than me."

Bush's birthdate is July 6, 1946; Miers' is August 10, 1945.

Bush wrote back to wish Miers a happy 52nd birthday, telling her that he appreciated her friendship and to "never hold back your sage advice." He ended with a postscript: "No more public scatology."

That October, Miers wrote Bush a note saying she hopes his twins, Jenna and Barbara, recognize they have "cool" parents.

Bush told Miers in a birthday note in 2000: "Have a great life!"

Menlaan

[Phlegm]

Well, I guess now we know how she got her nomination.

[Malluas]

no its not newsworthy

phlegm.. clinton appointed cronies also no bitching from the press on that.. so this is just shit that won't affect anyones view on the nominee ..

bunch of crap even if it was a democrat that was nomineeing someone who gave clinton a bj to get the position.. it doens't matter

the pres will pick who he wants.. not shit we can do about it

[The Kizzy]

OH MY GOD, BUSH NOMINATED A FRIEND TO OFFICE

[Jay]

On Bill Maher's show he was saying she called GWB "The most brilliant man she'd ever met".

[Menlaan]

On Bill Maher's show he was saying she called GWB "The most brilliant man she'd ever met".

That's really funny. That's taking ass-kissing to a whole new level.

Menlaan

[Kramer]

she did say that and..... well..... i guess you can't count public appearances as judgement of greatness....

yeah, people appoint friends to high office.... who cares right.... i mean FEMA wasn't effected... right??

i mean what is the supreme court?? really

[Ouchyfish]

she did say that and..... well..... i guess you can't count public appearances as judgement of greatness....

yeah, people appoint friends to high office.... who cares right.... i mean FEMA wasn't effected... right??

i mean what is the supreme court?? really

Hey-had the coastal areas been run over with horses we would have had it MADE!

[Milesaway]

Appointing someone to serve on the Supreme Court for the rest of their natural life? That is no big deal...in fact I think the Mr. Bush should just appoint a friend to be on the Court. It would even be better if she was unqualified--that way when she makes really important decisions that effect our right to have this discussion, she might just go with her gut or what Mr. Bush wants. Good idea!

[Ouchyfish]

Appointing someone to serve on the Supreme Court for the rest of their natural life? That is no big deal...in fact I think the Mr. Bush should just appoint a friend to be on the Court. It would even be better if she was unqualified--that way when she makes really important decisions that effect our right to have this discussion, she might just go with her gut or what Mr. Bush wants. Good idea!

How is this different from any of the other friends nominated to the court in the last 200+ years?

[Milesaway]

Actually, she is quite different from most who are nominated to the Supreme Court. She is simply not qualified for the Supreme Court.  She is not a good jurist and has never been a judge.  She is not a scholar of the law.  Researchers cannot dig up any past opinions.  She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum.

Basically, the ONLY reason she has been nominated is because she is Bush's friend. Have S.C. justices been friends of the President in the past--OF COURSE. But usually there is an attempt to make sure they are qualified (See newly crowned Chief Justice Roberts, friend of Bush, but qualified).

[Ouchyfish]

How qualified does someone have to be to make a decision on a case? Do you honestly think they don't go with the gut first then have staffers justify it by constitutional law second anyways?

[Gidan]

I would certainly hope that somone on the supreme court we qualified to make a decision that has a huge impact on the lives of many people in the country. We are not talking about small time civil cases here and we are talking about a lifetime apointment.

[Ouchyfish]

Have you taken a look at the other 2 branches of government lately? Sure, they're not lifetime appointments, but they can wreak some serious lifetime havoc.

[Jay]

Actually, she is quite different from most who are nominated to the Supreme Court. She is simply not qualified for the Supreme Court. She is not a good jurist and has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers cannot dig up any past opinions. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum.

Basically, the ONLY reason she has been nominated is because she is Bush's friend. Have S.C. justices been friends of the President in the past--OF COURSE. But usually there is an attempt to make sure they are qualified (See newly crowned Chief Justice Roberts, friend of Bush, but qualified).

I agree she's unqualified but you're wrong to say she hasn't had a "brilliant" career in politics or in the corporate world or in public forum (not the experience in the corporate world makes you a better justice). She was president of a law firm that staffed over 400 lawyers. Twice she's been one of the 100 most influencial lawyers in America. She's been a longtime courthouse clerk and she's been a lawyer for a long time specializing in corporate cases and is currently GWB's personal lawyer. Before you jump on the Bush hater bandwagon and say the shit everyone else on TV is saying, get your facts straight.

She's unqualified because she has no judicial experience. She's NEVER been a judge. She's never argued a case up to the supreme court. She also jocks Bush, which in turn can lead to some very biased decision making. Just another example of cronyism.

[Goose_Man]

Actually, she is quite different from most who are nominated to the Supreme Court. She is simply not qualified for the Supreme Court.  She is not a good jurist and has never been a judge.  She is not a scholar of the law.  Researchers cannot dig up any past opinions.  She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum.

Basically, the ONLY reason she has been nominated is because she is Bush's friend. Have S.C. justices been friends of the President in the past--OF COURSE. But usually there is an attempt to make sure they are qualified (See newly crowned Chief Justice Roberts, friend of Bush, but qualified).

You must be stuck on stupid

[Martrae]

Wasn't she president of the Texas Bar Association, too?

[Harrison]

Actually, she is quite different from most who are nominated to the Supreme Court. She is simply not qualified for the Supreme Court. She is not a good jurist and has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers cannot dig up any past opinions. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum.

Basically, the ONLY reason she has been nominated is because she is Bush's friend. Have S.C. justices been friends of the President in the past--OF COURSE. But usually there is an attempt to make sure they are qualified (See newly crowned Chief Justice Roberts, friend of Bush, but qualified).

You must be stuck on stupid

It's addictive.

[Durck]

Actually, she is quite different from most who are nominated to the Supreme Court. She is simply not qualified for the Supreme Court. She is not a good jurist and has never been a judge.

Psst, Dr. Know... Judge Rhenquist, the last Supreme Court Chief Justice, you know the guy that just died like... well guess what, HE HAD NEVER BEEN A JUDGE IN HIS LIFE until he was nominated for the Supreme court! Just a little history lesson for ya. Thought you'd like to know that. In case you go around spouting off reasons to be a justice and qualifications you obviously have no business assessing.

She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers cannot dig up any past opinions.

I guess that Law Degree she has means she got it at the K-Mart print shop one weekend on a whim? And have you even looked to see what she has filed in the way of Briefs, etc?

Shush now, you keep making us elitist look stupid. My rep is suffering and your stupidity is showing.

-Duck

[Harrison]

Shhhh, letting him continue is entertaining.

[Durck]

She's unqualified because she has no judicial experience. She's NEVER been a judge. She's never argued a case up to the supreme court. She also jocks Bush, which in turn can lead to some very biased decision making. Just another example of cronyism.

10 of the 34 justices appointed since 1933 had worked for the president who picked them. The list included the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, first tapped for the court by Richard M. Nixon, and Byron White, named by John F. Kennedy.

Several of the Chief Justices were not even judges:

William Rehnquist (appointed 1986) Chief Justice Seat: Lawyer, clerked for Justice Robert Jackson, wrote a memo in 1953 defending "separate but equal" during Brown case; when asked to explain, he claimed he was merely reflecting Justice Jackson's views, not his own.

Charles E. Hughes (appointed 1930): Governor of NY, Sect'y of State under Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Led fight against New Deal legislation as unconstitutional.

Salmon P. Chase (appointed 1864): Senator from Ohio (Free Soil Party), Governor of Ohio, and Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln, where he was tasked with the design of the first federal paper currency – many of the denominations were adorned with Chase's own face. Assumed to be another appointment for political loyalty.

Roger Taney (appointed 1836): This was a political appointment by Andrew Jackson to reward loyalty. A leader of the Federalist party, Attorney General of Maryland, then US Attorney General, he also served a brief stint as Secretary of the Treasury, where he helped Jackson in his war against the Second Bank of the United States (an area where many hard-money libertarians might consider him a hero).

That is just 4. There are many many many justices that are friends of those appointing them. Cronyism? No. Qualified? Are you?

-Duck

[xaoshaen]

She's unqualified because she has no judicial experience. She's NEVER been a judge. She's never argued a case up to the supreme court. She also jocks Bush, which in turn can lead to some very biased decision making. Just another example of cronyism.

10 of the 34 justices appointed since 1933 had worked for the president who picked them. The list included the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, first tapped for the court by Richard M. Nixon, and Byron White, named by John F. Kennedy.

Several of the Chief Justices were not even judges:

William Rehnquist (appointed 1986) Chief Justice Seat: Lawyer, clerked for Justice Robert Jackson, wrote a memo in 1953 defending "separate but equal" during Brown case; when asked to explain, he claimed he was merely reflecting Justice Jackson's views, not his own.

Charles E. Hughes (appointed 1930): Governor of NY, Sect'y of State under Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Led fight against New Deal legislation as unconstitutional.

Salmon P. Chase (appointed 1864): Senator from Ohio (Free Soil Party), Governor of Ohio, and Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln, where he was tasked with the design of the first federal paper currency – many of the denominations were adorned with Chase's own face. Assumed to be another appointment for political loyalty.

Roger Taney (appointed 1836): This was a political appointment by Andrew Jackson to reward loyalty. A leader of the Federalist party, Attorney General of Maryland, then US Attorney General, he also served a brief stint as Secretary of the Treasury, where he helped Jackson in his war against the Second Bank of the United States (an area where many hard-money libertarians might consider him a hero).

That is just 4. There are many many many justices that are friends of those appointing them. Cronyism? No. Qualified? Are you?

-Duck

As I mentioned before, I'm still waiting to hear more about Miers' positions on Constitutional issues before I advocate or condemn her selection. By all accounts, she's been a tremendously successful attorney throughout her career. The jobs she's held with the White House are emphatically not the jobs that get passed on to political cronies. They are, in the words of the Crank, "grueling" and crucial if "not glamorous". The competence of staff secretary and White House council is of the utmost importance to the residents of the WHite House. I'm well aware that other Supreme Court Justices have had little to no experience on that side of the bench prior to their appointments, and I can live with Miers' inexperience in that respect.

My concerns, which are entirely resolvable, pertain to the vast void of information we have about Miers' stance on, and comprehension of, Constitutional issues. I've been introduced to Constitutional law myself, and as has been pointed out elsewhere, it's not the most complex legislation. However, it has far broader import than any other form of law. Does Miers have the background in it necessary to grasp how one decision may set a precedent elsewhere, or how it will interact with previous decisions. This realm of murky, inderect relationships that stem from the stark baseline of the Constitution is where a judge leaves his or her mark. Does Miers have the necessary chops to do this at the highest level in the land? I just don't know. So far, I've seen absolutely nothing in her record to sway me either way. I'm hoping the requisite hearings will bring far more information to light than has been hashed over thus far.

[mofish]

http://www.cronyjobs.com/

[xaoshaen]

http://www.cronyjobs.com/

Cause it's easier to rely on partisanship than facts!

[Harrison]

http://www.propaganda.com