Newsworthy?

[Phlegm]

One reason Bush picked Miers....religion. From Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday his advisers were telling conservatives about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’ religious beliefs because they are interested in her background and “part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion.”

“People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “They want to know Harriet Miers’ background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion.”

Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination “just to explain the facts.”

He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee’s religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove.

Not even a congressional recess nor Bush’s preoccupation with hurricane recovery and affairs of state have shrouded the continuing controversy surrounding his selection of Miers to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Debate about Miers’ credentials was prominent on the Sunday television talk shows and has continued to occupy considerable attention on the Internet.

Some of Bush’s conservative critics say Miers has no judicial record that proves she will strictly interpret the Constitution and not — as Busy says — “legislate from the bench.” They argue that Bush passed up other more qualified candidates to nominate someone from his inner circle.

On a radio show being broadcast Wednesday, Dobson said he discussed Miers with Rove on Oct. 1, two days before her nomination was announced. Dobson said Rove told him “she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life,” but denied he had gotten any assurances from the White House that she would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Dobson said Rove told him that Miers had been a member of Texas Right to Life. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said she was not a member of the organization “that I'm aware of.”

“My understanding is that she attended some events, some fund-raising events that they had,” McClellan said.

Miers bought a $150 ticket to a 1989 fund-raising dinner for another anti-abortion group — Texans United for Life — according to the president of the group, now called the Texans for Life Coalition.

Leahy: ‘We don't confirm ... on a wink and a nod’
Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said: “The rest of America, including the Senate, deserves to know what he and the White House know.”

“We don’t confirm Justices of the Supreme Court on a wink and a nod. And a litmus test is no less a litmus test by using whispers and signals,” the Vermont senator said. “No political faction should be given a monopoly of relevant knowledge about a nomination, just as no faction should be permitted to hound a nominee to withdraw, before the hearing process has even begun.”

Earlier Wednesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asserted that Miers would bring “a unique brand of experience” to the high court and that the concerns of critics would be eased once more is known about her.

Gonzales, himself once considered a leading candidate for a vacancy there, said there is “nothing unique or earth-shattering” about Miers’ nomination and said people should give her time to say who she is and what she believes.

Also, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan acknowledged there were some prospective candidates who told the White House that they preferred not to be considered, citing the ordeal of the confirmation process.

“Washington scares people away? Is that new?” McClellan asked. “There are plenty of good people willing to be considered. The president found the best person.”

Some turned down Supreme Court nomination
McClellan later said that “it was just a couple of people” who asked that their names be withdrawn, and it happened when the field of candidates was “in the double digits.” He declined to say whether “a couple” meant just two — or more.

Asked why Rove would have discussed Miers’ religious views if the president ascribes to a conservative judicial philosophy that backs a strict interpretation of the Constitution regardless of one’s views on various issues, McClellan said it was just part of an “outreach” to help people get to know Miers.

“What we have seen so far,” Leahy said, “is more of a commentary on the litmus tests and narrow motivations of vocal factions on the Republican right than it is a commentary on the qualifications of Harriet Miers.”

[Milesaway]

Whether or not past justices have or have not been qualified begs the question of whether or not Miers is qualified. In fact, many of the justices mentioned as "not been judges before they served on the Supreme Court" were not great justices in my opinion.

Perhaps I should clarify: for those of us interested in the preservation of civil liberties and the growth of a more progressive society, a friend of Dubya with no experience as a judge is not the way to go.

[xaoshaen]

Whether or not past justices have or have not been qualified begs the question of whether or not Miers is qualified. In fact, many of the justices mentioned as "not been judges before they served on the Supreme Court" were not great justices in my opinion.

Actually, it doesn't beg the question. Something 'begs the question' when it assumes the answer in the question it raises. Do you actually know which judges first served on the bench as a Supreme Court justice?

Perhaps I should clarify: for those of us interested in the preservation of civil liberties and the growth of a more progressive society, a friend of Dubya with no experience as a judge is not the way to go.

Really? What in Miers' record leads you to expect her to abolish civil liberties or stand in the way of a "progressive" society? How do you expect her to do this? Legislating from the bench?

[Milesaway]

"What in Miers' record leads you to expect her to abolish civil liberties or stand in the way of a "progressive" society?" --xaoshaen

The fact that she is a friend of Dubya. See Patriot Act....etc.

"Actually, it doesn't beg the question. Something 'begs the question' when it assumes the answer in the question it raises."

It does beg the question of whether or not Miers would be a good justice when the fact that other justices have been appointed for similar reasons in the past is used to justify her appointment. In order to answer the Miers question, each justice appointed in a similar manner as she would need to be evaluated. In effect, listing justices who were appointed in the past under similar cirumstances raises even more questions about Miers' potential effectiveness.

[xaoshaen]

"What in Miers' record leads you to expect her to abolish civil liberties or stand in the way of a "progressive" society?" --xaoshaen

The fact that she is a friend of Dubya. See Patriot Act....etc.

Huh? You do know which branch of the government creates and passes laws, right? You do understand that Miers didn't achieve her position through cronyism or a good ol' boy system, right?

"Actually, it doesn't beg the question. Something 'begs the question' when it assumes the answer in the question it raises."

It does beg the question of whether or not Miers would be a good justice when the fact that other justices have been appointed for similar reasons in the past is used to justify her appointment. In order to answer the Miers question, each justice appointed in a similar manner as she would need to be evaluated. In effect, listing justices who were appointed in the past under similar cirumstances raises even more questions about Miers' potential effectiveness.

Did you just not read what I wrote, or did you not understand it? "Begs the question" doesn't mean what you think it means. I repeat, do you even know which Supreme Court justices lacked prior judicial experience, other than the two that Durck listed? Listing other justices who were appointed under similar conditions only raises (not 'begs', raises) a question if you can demonstrate a trend of unfitness amongst them. Thus far, you haven't even shown you can identify them.

[Milesaway]

I am basing my arguement about "the list of past justices" off of Durck's comment.

The arguement that Durk makes about past justices in similar situations avoids answering the question and raises more questions about the effectiveness of past justices; IN ADDITION to questions about Miers' value as a potential justice. It is a circular arguement.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begs_the_question

[xaoshaen]

I am basing my arguement about "the list of past justices" off of Durck's comment.

So, essentially, you don't actually have any idea which judges lacked judicial appointments prior to their nomination to the Supreme Court? If you don't know who they are, how do plan on justifying claims that they set a dangerous historical precedent for Miers? Are you, perhaps, intimately familiar with their subsequent judicial records, though their names escape you?

The arguement that Durk makes about past justices in similar situations avoids answering the question and raises more questions about the effectiveness of past justices; IN ADDITION to questions about Miers' value as a potential justice. It is a circular arguement.

As I pointed out before, you haven't even come close to demonstrating this. You haven't even come close to demonstrating that you know who the justices are, let alone how their history raises questions about Meirs' nomination. You have presented zero evidence that it raises questions about the effectiveness of past judges, unsubstantiated statements from the anonymity of the internet aside. You claim it's a circular argument, but haven't demonstrated that you actually know what a such an argument is, let alone how this qualifies.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begs_the_question

Yes, wikipedia knows what 'begs the question' means, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that you have no idea. This entry in no way, shape, or form pertains to your initial claim.

[Milesaway]

Our arguements are like two ships passing in the night. I think you are missing something, and you think I am missing something.

Thanks for the dry hump.

[Phlegm]

Our arguements are like two ships passing in the night. I think you are missing something, and you think I am missing something.

Thanks for the dry hump.

This argument is very one-sided. Xaoshaen is pretty much thumping you right now.

[Jay]

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

You're damn right I'm not qualified. Am I qualified to say who is qualified? Maybe not, but I can tell you that 3 of the 4 you listed are definately more qualified.

Both Rehnquist and Hughes served as associates justices before they became Chief Justices. Salmon Chase as a lawyer at least had brought a case before the Supreme court. Taney, well, I'll give you that one. Regardless of who was qualified in the past it doesn't make Miers anymore qualified now.

[Milesaway]

Word.

[xaoshaen]

Both Rehnquist and Hughes served as associates justices before they became Chief Justices. Salmon Chase as a lawyer at least had brought a case before the Supreme court. Taney, well, I'll give you that one. Regardless of who was qualified in the past it doesn't make Miers anymore qualified now.

Heh, I'm guessing you're just repeating what someone else said or wrote, because this is an incredibly stupid statement, and one I wouldn't expect you to make. Miers is not being nominated for Chief Justice, which I'm sure Chief Justice Roberts is happy to hear. She's being nominated for an associate justice slot... just like Rehnquist's first judicial position. Nobody is claiming that not being a judge somehow qualifies you... we're just pointing out that it should in no way be considered an automatic disqualification.

[mofish]

How can anyone actually be arguing that this isnt a case of cronyism? So Bush's lawyer, and council all the way back to his Texas days, happens to be his pick for Supreme Court. Give me a FUCKING break. You people will swallow anything that comes from him apparently.

As George Will said :

"If 100 such people (people capable of judging merit for a supreme court nomination) had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists."

[Milesaway]

...and we are just pointing out that she may not be the best choice--even if she is a good lawyer.

Somehow, the fact that a handfull of other justices were appointed without bench experience has been used to enhance her qualifications. I would prefer to look at her ability to make objective decisions, ideology and record (which of course she doesn't have). I suspect bias, specifically because of her close relationship with Dubya. YES, there have been other biased judges. BUT, that doesn't make it right.

[xaoshaen]

...and we are just pointing out that she may not be the best choice--even if she is a good lawyer.

Bullshit. You're arguing that she's completely unqualified for the position. Allow me to quote from this very thread:

She is simply not qualified for the Supreme Court

She is not a scholar of the law.

She is not a good jurist

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.

You've completely ignored the facts in an effort to make your hatchet job more convincing. Miers has had a spectacular career in the corporate world and in a public forum. Claiming she hasn't been a good jurist is ludicrous: you don't attain her positions as a lawyer without having an excellent grasp of the law. You don't work as the White House counsel on the basis of friendship, as I pointed out earlier. Miers' qualifications as a lawyer are damn near impeccable. The questions that can be legitimately raised center on her grasp of the tangled net of implications raised by Constitutional issues. We have no idea how qualified she is on the subject. Right now we're operating in a void of positive or negative information.

Somehow, the fact that a handfull of other justices were appointed without bench experience has been used to enhance her qualifications. I would prefer to look at her ability to make objective decisions, ideology and record (which of course she doesn't have). I suspect bias, specifically because of her close relationship with Dubya. YES, there have been other biased judges. BUT, that doesn't make it right.

No, the fact that a handful of other justices were appointed without bench experience has been used to refute specific, baseless allegations of incompetence raised on those grounds in this very thread. I suspect rank stupidity. YES, there have been other stupid posts. BUT, that doesn't make it right.

[xaoshaen]

How can anyone actually be arguing that this isnt a case of cronyism? So Bush's lawyer, and council all the way back to his Texas days, happens to be his pick for Supreme Court. Give me a FUCKING break. You people will swallow anything that comes from him apparently.

You will apparently swallow anything that feeds your irrational hatred of the right, Mofish. Simply put, you don't make it to the positions that Miers has held on the basis of friendship or cronyism. Claiming otherwise merely weakens your case, as it displays your ignorance of what exactly is involved in those positions.

You also apparently missed the part where I mentioned that I'm not convinced she's the right person for the job. I'm just willing to wait and see what her actual record is, rather than parroting the reactionary fervor to be found in the partisan blog of the week.

[Gidan]

Of course she seems to not have an acutal record so you may be waiting a long time on that. What strikes me is that the questions about her nomination are not jsut comming from the democrats, they are comming just as strong from the republicans. Its a bit odd to me that he would nominate what is more or less a complete unknown for the position.

I dont doubt for a minute that GW thinks she will do a great job. Its obvious they agree about a great many things, he can probably guess exactly how should would rule on most issues and is assured it would be how he would want it ruled on.

I on the other hand dont think she would have even gotten a first look had she not been so close to bush for all these years. She got this nomination becasue of her relationship to bush. I can gaurantee there are beter choices for the position.

[Milesaway]

If you don't believe me, listen to Trent...

MSNBC.com
Lott: 'Not comfortable' with Miers' nomination
Miss. Senator says he'll need more information before supporting nominee

MSNBC
Updated: 11:34 a.m. ET Oct. 5, 2005

Add Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) to the list of Republicans not entirely pleased with President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

Lott, appearing on MSNBC-TV on Wednesday morning, told anchor Randy Meier that wants more information about Miers.

"I need to know a lot more about her, her experience and her level of competence and what is her philosophy. I really don't know this lady and I do think I owe it to my constituents and to my own conscience to do due diligence and find out actually who this person is," he said.

His first impression, however, was not a positive one.

"I don't just automatically salute or take a deep bow anytime a nominee is sent up," he said. "I have to find out who these people are, and right now, I'm not satisfied with what I know. I'm not comfortable with the nomination, so we'll just have to work through the process in due time."

Lott said while Miers may be qualified, she is "clearly" not the most qualified person for the job.

"There are a lot more people - men, women and minorities - that are more qualified in my opinion by their experience than she is," he said.

With all that in mind, Lott said he isn't ready to take President Bush's suggestion that she has the same judicial philosophy as he does.

"I have a lot of confidence in this president. I do think he has picked some really good nominees and like all of us, we make mistakes now and then, and it's our responsibility under the constitution in the Senate to review this nominee," Lott said.

"He's not the nominee, and it's not enough to just say 'Trust me.'"

MSNBC Live with Amy Robach and Randy Meier can be seen weekdays from 9 a.m.-Noon.

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive
© 2005 MSNBC.com

[xaoshaen]

Of course she seems to not have an acutal record so you may be waiting a long time on that. What strikes me is that the questions about her nomination are not jsut comming from the democrats, they are comming just as strong from the republicans. Its a bit odd to me that he would nominate what is more or less a complete unknown for the position.

I dont doubt for a minute that GW thinks she will do a great job. Its obvious they agree about a great many things, he can probably guess exactly how should would rule on most issues and is assured it would be how he would want it ruled on.

I on the other hand dont think she would have even gotten a first look had she not been so close to bush for all these years. She got this nomination becasue of her relationship to bush. I can gaurantee there are beter choices for the position.

Don't be ridiculous, of course she has a record. She's been a lawyer for a quarter century. She's been recognized for significant achievements having nothing to do with Bush or his administrations. Many of the conservatives opposing her nomination don't believe she'll toe the party line.

I find it hilarious that you'd guarantee anything about her, given the relative paucity of information we have.

[Martrae]

The Republicans are pissed because she's not a hardline anti-abortionist. They wanted Bush to nominate someone that would possibly overturn or diminish Roe vs Wade.

Personally, I think he's pulling a fast one on the dems. He's nominated someone he knows very well but without a public paper trail and gotten the reps spouting off against her. This makes the dems want to like her. Very slick if you ask me.

[xaoshaen]

If you don't believe me, listen to Trent...

Yes, Trent Lott, that bastion of legal prowess. It's a decent attempt at drawing attention away from the gaping holes and inconsistencies in your argument though.

Pardon me if I remain unconvinced by public posturing by a politician, regardless fo their political leanings.

[brinstar]

i was listening to talk radio on the way home yesterday, and some guy was talking about dubya's claim that miers' philosophy wouldn't change at all over the years

he seemed to think that was a bad thing, because taking part in a nine-way discussion (on any number of vital cases that would have the potential to set precedents for years to come) with a predetermined and immutable answer isn't conducive at all to the very nature of discussion. it is not just desirable, but imperative for someone involved in such a process to possess as open a mind as possible, and a willingness to look at cases from the other justices' points of view.

people change. times change. i don't want a robot judge!

[brinstar]

edit: double post madness

[mofish]

How can anyone actually be arguing that this isnt a case of cronyism? So Bush's lawyer, and council all the way back to his Texas days, happens to be his pick for Supreme Court. Give me a FUCKING break. You people will swallow anything that comes from him apparently.

You will apparently swallow anything that feeds your irrational hatred of the right, Mofish. Simply put, you don't make it to the positions that Miers has held on the basis of friendship or cronyism. Claiming otherwise merely weakens your case, as it displays your ignorance of what exactly is involved in those positions.

You also apparently missed the part where I mentioned that I'm not convinced she's the right person for the job. I'm just willing to wait and see what her actual record is, rather than parroting the reactionary fervor to be found in the partisan blog of the week.

Hey genius, there you go reading what you think someone says and not what they actually say. Youre right, I dont take my own word for it. I read what people more educated on the matter have to say and then form an opinion. People like George Will.

And btw, any idiot not blinded by his own rhetoric can see this pick for what it is. It doesnt exactly take a master of legal knowledge to realize Bush is appointing a friend to the court.

[xaoshaen]

Hey genius, there you go reading what you think someone says and not what they actually say. Youre right, I dont take my own word for it. I read what people more educated on the matter have to say and then form an opinion. People like George Will.

And btw, any idiot not blinded by his own rhetoric can see this pick for what it is. It doesnt exactly take a master of legal knowledge to realize Bush is appointing a friend to the court.

Oh, I'm sorry Mo, did I miss the part where you considered the choice rationally, perhaps supported your opinion with some facts, as opposed to someone else's opinion? Please feel free to draw my attention to it.