I'm suspicious as hell about Miers, but what's so terrible about her?

[BloodyWilliam]

I mean... I'm suspicious of ANYONE Bush appoints. But what's so big about her that's getting right-wingers' collective panties in a bunch? They didn't spaz about Poindexter, or Roberts, or Brown, or... okay, am I just missing something?

[KerryReallyWon]

1. she is the lawyer for W who

scrubbed his guard records...with our money! He is setting up the court in case he is indicted, that is what is soooo wrong with her.

[BloodyWilliam]

3. Well, yeah. Wrong for US.

But... why are the right-wingers having an anyeurism about her?

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. They want prayer in schools,

Roe V. Wade overturned, "under G-d" left in the Pledge, Nativity scenes all over the place at X-mas time, the 10 Commandment on the steps of every courthouse in the country and Christianity the National religion. No rights for Gays, they will be imprisoned and anyone who has an abortion will be thrown in jail too. DOMINIONISM.

Apparently, she isn't rabid enough for them.

[jayctravis]

38. Was she like W's piano teacher or something?

[SmokingJacket]

2. They just want someone who will vote to overturn RoevWade

They don't know anything about Miers, so it pisses them off: they wanted a firm ally.

[Ravenseye]

6. Exactly

They want a foaming at the mouth rabid right wing activist judge, not a Bush crony who they know nothing about. They're still scared from the multiple so called conservative apointees in the past that have veered to the middle once they were put on the bench.

[napi21]

8. I'm positive you're right on this. They all wanted Brown or Owen.

They wanted someone who had a solid record of being a firm RW extremist, and with Miers, they just don't know! She could turn out to be another O'Connor or Suter, and they we sooo convinced that their reborn Pres. would stick with their wishes and he failed them!!!

[Pirate Smile]

4. This looks interesting:

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/10/3/115019/566

[Ravenseye]

11. good thoughts there

I'm just hoping the democrats on the comittee will actually ask questions and now blather on and on with their statements.

I want them to grow a pair, to be recognized and say

"Thanks Mr. Chairman...First I want to welcome Ms Miers here. Ok, first question. In your role as a presidential advisor, did you ever advise the President that the torture and mistreatment of Iraqi's was fine and that we could ignore the Geneva Convention?"

[Mutley]

15. That is interesting.

We should all write our reps and ask them to take that course.

[intheflow]

5. She's never been a judge.

That lack of experience alone should disqualify her from sitting on the highest court in the land.

It also looks like she may have "lost" *'s National Guard files. Or at least it was she who said they turned up missing. That's suspicious in and of itself.

[bowens43]

14. Historically, over one fourth of the justices of the supreme court

were never judges.

[intheflow]

17. When was that and under what circumstances?

For instance, in the early years of the country I'm sure we had SC judges who hadn't even gone to law school. What is the modern, 20th century precident?

[onenote]

23. a number of 20th Century precedents

Earl Warren
Byron White
Tom Clark
Lewis Powell
Arthur Goldberg
Abe Fortas
Hugo Black
Felix Frankfurter
And probably others....

onenote

[intheflow]

33. Thanks. That's helpful to know! n/t

[eggman67]

25. Earl Warren

Is probably the best known. It's really not that uncommon.

[MrBenchley]

22. However, usually they have a record of public service...

[butchcjg]

24. Rhenquist never judge....I dont think Warren was?

[Balbus]

7. Cronyism

It's payback for something

[MoonRiver]

10. They sold their souls, along with health and wealth, for one issue.

Now they are starting to recognize the devil doesn't give a hoot about the 'agreement'.

[OneBlueSky]

12. might be nice if SC justices were well versed in constitutional law . .n/t

.

[DefenseLawyer]

28. One thing I hope

whether she ultimately has the votes or not, is that the committee really hits her with plenty of "academic" legal questions, not only to find out her positions on some rather complicated aspects of constitutional law, but to find out if she even has a grasp of them. That is not to say she is or isn't smart, but given that she has never been a judge or even a litigator, I doubt seriously that she has had the opportunity or need to develop a truly well defined position on some of the more abstract principles in this area. If I saw her this morning and asked her to explain her position on the continued validity of Almendarez-Torres in light of Blakely would she have an answer?

[Laelth]

13. I have a list of objections, if you're interested.

:)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2130848&mesg_id=2130848

-Laelth

[bloom]

16. Apparently a caller on Cspan

was concerned that she was not a wife and mother.

They must be afraid she is a closet liberal or lesbian?? :eyes:

Heck if I know.

She sounds like a Bushbot to me.

[ikojo]

19. But if she was a wife and mother, wouldn't they also

be upset that she WORKED OUTSIDE THE HOME?

Or is it only poor mothers who are not to work outside the home?

[bloom]

27. Maybe it's Ok as long as you're a Republican?

I looked up Sandra Day O'connor. She got married right out of law school and had 3 sons - presumably while working. It's amazing what women have to put up with:

"She continued at the Stanford Law School for her LL.B., graduating in two years (instead of the customary three), serving on the Stanford Law Review, and graduating toward the top of a class <2> of 102 of which William Rehnquist was valedictorian. (O'Connor actually dated Rehnquist for a period of time. <3>)

In spite of her accomplishments at law school, no law firm in California was willing to hire her as a lawyer, although one firm did offer her a position as a legal secretary."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Day_O'Conner

[bloom]

39. Here is the wing-nut response to that (as seen posted on the Daou report):

"But there’s a larger issue here. I cringe every time I hear the we-must-appoint-a-woman mantra or the-fairer-sex-will-save-the-day schtick, but it’s not just blind chauvinism. Call it informed chauvinism. You see, the governing principle here is that finding a traditional woman in the political arena is a little like finding a NOW member in a full-length burka.

Think about it: generally speaking, where do you find good, conservative, traditional women? The answer is in the home, not the House. Traditional women are usually devoted to traditional endeavors, such as raising their children and tending to hearth and home. And when they are forced by necessity into the workaday world, they’re usually doing merely what is required to put three squares on the table. They’re not seeking to exalt themselves through careerism.

At the other end of the spectrum you find the Hillary Clintons, Barbara Boxers and Diane Feinsteins of the world. These women drank deeply of the cup of feminist Kool-Aid, imbibing its precept that fulfillment can only be found through worldly pursuits which, as we all know, were selfishly reserved for men, by men. Simply put, a traditional woman’s greatest dream is to raise a family; a feminist woman’s greatest dream is to create a village that can raise a family.

To those who would dispute me, I throw down the gauntlet. Please name five prominent women currently in politics who possess genuine conservative credentials. Okay, we can forget the aforementioned Three Bobbitteers (I won’t explain that reference) and the rest of the Femocrats, as they’re all cut from the same stone. But what of the Republicans, ostensibly the party of conservatism? Surely they must boast some conservative women."

http://www.pardonmyenglish.com/archives/2005/10/as_a_matter_of_1.html

[Beelzebud]

18. She was appointed by George W. Bush.

Any questions?

[dflprincess]

20. Which is enough to tell us that she's incompetent

What bothers me is, she has less of a paper trail than Roberts - never been a judge, never written any opinions. Granted, you don't have to be a judge to be a Supreme Court Justice but, at the least, I'd expect someone who has at least taught Constitutional Law.

Anything she has done she'll be able to refuse to answer on the grounds of attorney client privilege - and we know who her client has been.

[MrBenchley]

21. The biggest part of it is

they wanted a pick like Eric Rudolph, a stone crazy, that would be a big finger to the rest of America...and they didn't get it.

Plus they can smell the flop sweat stink from this appointment, and they know it's going to remind America that the fuehrer is a wartime deserter who appointed Commissioner Horseflop. She's two scandals in one and she's going to keep them both in the headlines for months.

[godai]

26. In 2001, she was Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary

Now Supreme Court Justice? Quite a leap, don't you think?

[bloom]

29. I doubt it was anything like a usual secretary

The job of Secretary used to be more appreciated, anyway - before it became more of a "woman's" job.


"Formerly Bush's personal lawyer in Texas, Miers came with him to the White House in 2001 as staff secretary, the person who screens all the documents that cross the president's desk. She was promoted to deputy chief of staff before Bush named her counsel after his reelection in November. She replaced Alberto R. Gonzales, another longtime Bush confidant, who was elevated to attorney general."

[gort]

30. Impeachment Insurance Policy

She and Roberts along with Scalia/Thomas(One person/two votes) will protect Bush and Cheney from ever being Frog-Marched to justice.

[DefenseLawyer]

31. The Supreme Court

has nothing to do with the impeachment process, except that the Chief Justice presides over the trial in the Senate once the President has been impeached by the House of Representaives.

[gort]

35. thanks for the civics lesson

I used to think that the Supreme Court didn't decide elections, either so that is why I think they would somehow impose themselves onto our impeachment process, too.

[julialnyc]

32. here's one thing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4958710

[AlphaCat]

34. At this point...

I'm more concerned about knowing HOW, and upon what criteria, are these people being chosen? After Brownie, I want to KNOW it's more than just the fact the president 'likes' her...

[johnaries]

36. RW's are excited because she said the "magic words".

Strict interpretation, will not legislate from the bench..

All the meaningless sound bites that the RW has been repeating in their talking points.

They don't know what the sound bites mean, they just want to hear them repeated.

She's a shill. Period.

[ruggerson]

37. She's a fundamentalist n/t

[Vinca]

40. I think she's far worse than the Roberts nomination.

For starters, she's not a "Constitutional scholar" and since interpreting the Constitution IS the job, that makes her less than qualified. Secondly, she's an insider and a crony. We saw what insider Brownie amounted to and this lady would have an impact on each and every one of us, our children and grandchildren. Thirdly, she thinks Shrub is the most brilliant person she's ever met. Either she hasn't met many people or she's a blubbering idiot. Take your pick. Rumor has it she's as far from pro-choice as a person can be and that can't be a good thing. If this one doesn't merit a filibuster, I don't know what does.