Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Countrydave55

Judge Miers?

Recommended Posts

POTUS can nominate the cat. That doesn't mean the Senate has to accept the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the fact that she's up for nomination. She has never taken the bench as a Judge in her career and it feels way too much like President Bush is putting her name up because she's part of his " inner circle ".

It used to be quite common for Supreme Court Justices to have never had served on the bench before confirmation. I don't believe not being a Judge before excludes one from being qualified. It might actually be a good thing to put an judicial outsider on the bench.

Now if the Senate does their job properly, they will determine or not if she is qualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers

 

 

Obviously, Hamilton could not imagine a president such as Bush who had no shame.

 

 

 

 

 

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/...ed/federa76.htm

no other merit? this woman is a "pioneer" (to steal the president's description).

 

 

just because she's not a judge doesn't mean she isn't familiar with the justice system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The President's description of a "pioneer" is someone who gives him $100,000. I don't think there is sufficient merit in that to qualify anyone for a judicial position, but I expect that the President thinks differently.

 

Rangers are an elite class of fundraisers created for the 2004 election cycle who have bundled at least $200,000 for the Bush campaign. Pioneers are those who have pledged to gather $100,000. For the 2004 campaign, there are 221 Rangers and 327 Pioneers, so far. In the 2000 campaign, 550 fundraisers signed up to be Pioneers, and at least 241 of them reached their goal.

All kidding aside, Pat, why do you think she has merit, and why do you think she is a pioneer?

 

 

 

 

http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/Contribut...neer_search.cfm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# She clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970 to 1972.

# In 1972, Ms. Miers became the first woman hired at Dallas’s Locke Purnell Rain Harrell.

# In March 1996, her colleagues elected her the first female President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers. She became the first female to lead a Texas firm of that size.

# Locke, Purnell eventually merged with a Houston firm and became Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, where Ms. Miers became Co-Managing Partner and helped manage an over-400-lawyer firm.

# Ms. Miers had a very distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co. and SunGard Data Systems Inc.

# Throughout her career, she has been very active in the legal community and has blazed a trail for other women to follow.

 

    * In 1985, Ms. Miers was selected as the first woman to become President of the Dallas Bar Association.

    * In 1992, she became the first woman elected President of the State Bar of Texas. Ms. Miers served as the President of the State Bar of Texas from 1992 to 1993.

    * She played an active role in the American Bar Association. She was one of two candidates for the Number 2 position at the ABA, chair of the House of Delegates, before withdrawing her candidacy to move to Washington to serve in the White House. Ms. Miers also served as the chair of the ABA’s Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice.

 

# On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the Nation’s 100 most powerful attorneys, and as one of the Nation’s top 50 women lawyers.

# Ms. Miers also has been involved in local and statewide politics in Texas.

 

    * In 1989, she was elected to a two-year term as an at-large candidate on the Dallas City Council. She chose not to run for re-election when her term expired.

    * Ms. Miers also served as general counsel for the transition team of Governor-elect George W. Bush in 1994.

    * From 1995 until 2000, Ms. Miers served as Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, a voluntary public service position she undertook while maintaining her legal practice and other responsibilities. When then-Governor Bush appointed Ms. Miers to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission, it was mired in scandal, and she served as a driving force behind its cleanup.

 

# Ms. Miers came to Washington D.C. in 2001 and began a period of distinguished and dedicated service that continues today.

 

    * She was appointed to be Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary on January 20, 2001.

    * In 2003, Ms. Miers was promoted to be Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff.

    * Ms. Miers has served as Counsel to the President since February, 2005.

 

from http://whitehouse.gov

 

She has an extensive history in law, and she was a "pioneer" in the sense that she was the first woman to do several of the things she's done.

 

She was most likely appointed counsel to the president (and governor of Texas) because she was simply best fit for the job. What would be wrong for the president to have seen how well she knows the law and then nominate her for the supreme court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be wrong for the president to have seen how well she knows the law and then nominate her for the supreme court?

Nothing at all, if we had a president that understood the law. The man is a candidate for velcro shoes and a hockey helmet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Win-win-win for Dubya. He gets a novice confirmed as Supreme Court judge and gets a female to take the heat the Democrats wouldn't dare heap upon Roberts.

 

If she gets confirmed she's another Bush cadre on the bench. If she doesn't she's another fatality to be blamed on the Democrats. Better still, she's a chick, as in killing two birds with one stone.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmmm, she's never been a judge, but she has been the presidents lawyer, so that qualifies her to be on the Supreme Court?? She is from Texas though. Maybe that had something to do with the nomination.......YA THINK!!!!!!

 

A non-never-has-been-a-judge gets a nomination?

 

A judge that has never been on the Supreme Court(although it's a lifetime appointment), or the Court of Appeals, gets to be Chief Justice over all the long time fully qualified judges on the Supreme Court?

 

What the heck is Dubya doing to our Supreme Court.

 

His latest quote which I saw on CNN and CNBC was, "God told me to invade Iraq."

Maybe he really has started drinking again :mrsgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he nominate Jesus Christ...they would argue and

complain about it.. :angry:

 

That's the way Liberals are... :shifty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His latest quote which I saw on CNN and CNBC was, "God told me to invade Iraq."

Maybe he really has started drinking again :mrsgreen:

not actually his quote, that's a quote of a foreign politician who claims to be quoting him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't object to having a non-judge appointment, but I think that Congress has some duty to find out where the candidate stands on legal matters.

which is exactly what is going to happen. The president can appoint me if he so wishes, if congress doesnt like it then they can deny their confirmation. Its simple and it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long winded bunch... :mrgreen:

 

I still like her..she has kind eyes. :) v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its all bullsheet!

Nah..your post can sure ruin a thread tho...

 

The system has worked for a few years already..don't see a problem with the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the Nation’s 100 most powerful attorneys, and as one of the Nation’s top 50 women lawyers.

 

I'd rather have number #1, or at least in the top #5. That's like saying, "Fifty percent of the lawyers in this country graduated in the top half of their class."

 

All smoke and mirrors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I still like her..she has kind eyes. :) v

 

The kind of eyes you see on a pouncing Tiger!

 

Attorneys have no intention of being kind to anyone but themselves

 

 

:shifty::shifty::shifty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the Nation’s 100 most powerful attorneys, and as one of the Nation’s top 50 women lawyers.

 

I'd rather have number #1, or at least in the top #5. That's like saying, "Fifty percent of the lawyers in this country graduated in the top half of their class."

 

All smoke and mirrors.

In this country with 20 million lawyers ( I am exagerating) the top 100 laywers in the country are in the top 1 percent. I think that makes a great pick if you use that reasoning to pick a nominee. That puts her in a class were very few lawyers will ever be. The Senate will pick her apart and grill her. They will determine if she is qualified. Besides do not underestimate GW Bush on his picks. John Roberts turned out to be one of the best picks he could have made for Chief Justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true that it used to be common for Supreme Court Judges to be appointed to the court without having served as judges before. We used to appoint Generals based upon political leadership and wealth. Is that what we should return to? Physicians used to be people that called themselves physicians. No education required. Maybe we should return to that tradition too.

 

I am not sure that being a judge is a prerequisite but it is certainly desirable. At least in our county when a judge is elected to the bench he or she starts in lower court often family law before criminal law and certainly before appellate law. I think knowing the law as an advocate is different than being a judge.

 

What is this junk that after 15 plus years of contact and family parties and George telling her how to vet judges and prosecute cases the subject of her feelings on abortion have never come up. Is this credible? Why is it (almost) every Christian Right Clergy is now on record has having "every confidence" that she is pro-life. I think this smells bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are using public forums, such as the media, to direct her on how to answer questions, when asked.

The media isn't very bright, they are willing to be used in this fashion, hoping for favor by someone at a later date. Many reports say she is a bit headstrong, but Bush says she is like him---simple minded, confused much of the time, unable to speak the native language and lacking in leadership skills.

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true that it used to be common for Supreme Court Judges to be appointed to the court without having served as judges before. We used to appoint Generals based upon political leadership and wealth. Is that what we should return to? Physicians used to be people that called themselves physicians. No education required. Maybe we should return to that tradition too.

 

I am not sure that being a judge is a prerequisite but it is certainly desirable. At least in our county when a judge is elected to the bench he or she starts in lower court often family law before criminal law and certainly before appellate law. I think knowing the law as an advocate is different than being a judge.

 

What is this junk that after 15 plus years of contact and family parties and George telling her how to vet judges and prosecute cases the subject of her feelings on abortion have never come up. Is this credible? Why is it (almost) every Christian Right Clergy is now on record has having "every confidence" that she is pro-life. I think this smells bad.

James Dobson and the Christian right have come out in opposition to her because they do no know where she stands on abortion. Besides, there are a lot more important issues than abortion. You should never use one issue as a test of competency for a Supreme Court Justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that a Supreme Court Justice (or lower court justice) should not be determined based upon a single issue except perhaps if they believed in anarchy. That was not what I mean t to ask. My question is how can so many Christian Right Leaders "know " that she is pro life when 1) the president who has known her for 12 plus years doesn't and 2) if someone is assuring these people that she is pro-life how do they know and why didn't they give the president a clue. I hope this isn't one of those confusing communications. You know like we are going into Iraq because WMD when what he really meant (at least last week) was that we are fighting in Iraq to prevent a radical Muslim country being in power in the middle east (I guess he doesn't know who runs or Iran or who ran Afghanistan). Or the communication that know one in his administration would leak the identity of CIA agent and if they did they would be fired immediately. But what he apparently meant to say was that any low level leaker would be fired but any important person in his administration or any friends would be shielded (and probably pardoned) only after a conviction (instead of when they acknowledged that they had leaked the information).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right wing may be up in arms over the nomination, but not James Dobson who got a personal call from Karl Rove.

Afterwards, Dobson told the New York Times he supported her because of her religious faith and because he has reason to believe she opposes abortion.

 

"Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about," he told the newspaper.

It's too bad that the White House doesn't see fit to give that information to all of us.

 

George Bush has made so many inept and/or corrupt crony appointments that his judgement is not to be trusted--just look at FEMA.

 

 

 

 

http://www.rocklintoday.com/news/templates...=2546&zoneid=19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...