Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How I think we should stop Harriet Miers

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 11:23 PM
Original message
How I think we should stop Harriet Miers
After reflecting briefly on the current situation, I think the best path to the death of this nomination is through the Supreme Court a la Nixon vs. US. We should demand documents from her time as Bush's attorney and refuse to cooperate with the GOP on any of their agenda until we have them.

When it gets to SCOTUS Roberts would probably have to recuse himself just as Rhenquist did. The pressure on him from the other two branches, the public and the other justices would be enormous. I think the way it'd work then would be the longest-serving member stepping up to be Chief Justice on the case. If I'm correct, that's Stevens. We've got Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter. They've got Scalia and Thomas for sure. Kennedy and O'Conner are up the air. But O'Connor is going to want to screw Bush for nominating such a joke as Harriet Miers and screw Bush because she wants off the Court and argument for releasing the documents is sound. Kennedy can break for them and it won't matter, but he could go in our favor too. 5-3 Bush has to release all relevent documents to the Senate. Miers is probably toast is the Senate at this point.

We can then comb White House legal records from her time there which should yield a lot of juicy stuff. Somehow, I think Bush like Nixon will resign before we get to the logical extension. Or he could always be impeached. I see an opportunity...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kenroy Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why do you want to stop Miers?
Who do you think Bush will nominate that's better?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. nominate bill Clinton so that hillary will never be president :-)
Edited on Wed Oct-05-05 11:57 PM by msongs
now hillary could actually run but the conflict of interest thing would be an awesome election angle for the repubs

Msongs
www.msongs.com/clark2008.htm


edit to say: not necessarily my opinon on hillary or her being prez
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Do you hear the clock ticking on these bastards?
I think we need to take them down and take them down hard. It happened before, we can make it happen again. I don't want Bush to send another nominee at all. Can we all say President Pelosi, together now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ochazuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
3. Didn't Barbara Boxer stop the Bolton nomination...
...by using some proceedural rule regarding the admins failure to release documents?

As to why we would want to stop the nomination: she's a fascist. Bush may soon be so weak he must nominate a true consensus candidate. And certainly the crony thing is totally anti-constitutional. The Supreme Court must not be an extension of the Executive.

Who knows? Bush may not even be around long enough to nominate another justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
4. don't let 'em fool you . . . the votes that Roberts and Miers cast . . .
will be dictated by BushCo and the PNAC for the next quarter century or so . . . both are malleable, slavishly devoted to Bush ("most brilliant man I ever met"), and less than qualified (to say the least) in constitutional law . . . the understanding, whether explicit or implicit, has to be "we'll appoint you, and we expect you to vote as we say" . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC