It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Bush Nominates Harriet Miers to Supreme Court

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
[
Well marg that would be an interesting turn of events indeed. A lesbian conservative bush cronie, who's the president's opposition gonna be? Maybe Reid knows something the White House doesn't. This should be fun.


I don't think anyone (other than some on the far right of the far right) suspects she's actually gay, just another in the Family Values Inner Circle of neo-con eunuch foot soldiers that's never had a date.

Like Condi, McClellan, Rove, Go-to Gannon... (okay, he was pretty gay)




posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Meier's could turn out to be a controversial choice simply because she was never a Judge. She does however appear to have a number of awards in the legal field and several firsts for female attorneys in Texas.

[edit on 10/3/2005 by shots]


Wait...

In the U.S. you can be the highest level judge yet never have been a judge prior to this?

That's stupid and crazy...oh my lord...

[State of shock here.]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

I don't think anyone (other than some on the far right of the far right) suspects she's actually gay,


I sure would like to see the faces of some people when they find out, if she is.

Maybe she don't know YET?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

Maybe Reid knows something the White House doesn't. This should be fun.


Actually It will be good news for some I believe, but I personally think that it may not be true after all.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Wonkette (thanks Marg)

But it seems that resulted in a cat fight with her "competition" for SCOTUS Prissy Owen over the last blind man in Texas.



Actually, "competition" isn't entirely accurate since it was Hustlin' Harriet's responsibility to find the qualified person for the job to which she's now nominated.

Guess that man stealin' hussey Prissy (that the religious right likes so much) didn't fit the bill.

What a farce.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I.....I....I....eye-yie-yie.

I don't know where to start.


Oh, mercy, mercy, me. Things ain't what they used to be, oh.

The fish are filled with Mercury, oh.

The SC is full of hypocrisy, oh. (may Marvin forgive me)


So she's androgenous. I like her, don't ask me why.

Maybe she is the voice of reason Pres. Bush has been ignoring all along, and he finally figured it out and wants her on the SC. Maybe she got fed up with dishing out the party line @ whitehouse.gov and told him she wanted the job or she was coming out of the closet. I don't know.

Maybe she's a wildcard, just like me.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I think that I read about this "lady" before, in Newsweek I think...I will try to find a link. I think that she was hired by dubya to do a preliminary study of his guard duty record, back when he was only taking away the civil rights of Texans.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Wait...

In the U.S. you can be the highest level judge yet never have been a judge prior to this?

That's stupid and crazy...oh my lord...

[State of shock here.]


Not crazy at all that is the way the system has worked for hundreds of years and rather well I might add. Her nomination now brings the total to 35 as I recall it could be 34 or even 36 that is not the point. The fact is that roughy 35 previous members of the court were never judges. Several also were never lawyers I might add.

[edit on 10/3/2005 by shots]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Well, it could be worse.

She's obviously a moderate, who will virtually slip into Sandra Day O'Conner's shoes, and serve the same centrist role.

As much as I loath cronyism, protecting the court and what's left of our civil liberties for the next generation is much more important, then opposing her out of spite.

If anybody doesn't like her, then blame your fellow Americans for voting Bush back into office, because unfortunately he gets to choose.

Now's not the time to be rabid, now's the time to recognize a gift when it arrives under the tree.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Oh, I don't deny that it has worked well during most of its years however I do worry about the options you can pull from to put in such a seat of power for the rest of their life.

I tend to hope such seats are primarily given to people who understand the law, have had to for years and have seen more cases than you can shake a stick at...but also for the fact if a Government ever held a super-majority, they could effictively put very 'bad' people into a seat of power for 30+ years...



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Not crazy at all that is the way the system has worked for hundreds of years and rather well I might add. Her nomination now brings the total to 35 as I recall it could be 34 or even 36 that is not the point. The fact is that roughy 35 previous members of the court were never judges. Several also were never lawyers I might add.


Yep. Some notable recent examples of Supreme Court justices who were never judges before are William Rehnquist and Earl Warren.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I thought Earl Warren was a district attorney for a good 10+ years...in fact might have gone to nearly 30years and that's more experiance in the legal field than most judges get.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Oh my my... what have we stepped into here? A right-wing hen party?

“Perhaps they’ll change my mind, but so far I’m underwhelmed.”

“Disaster, Thy Name Is Harriet Miers"



Published on Monday, October 3, 2005 by ThinkProgress.org
Right-Wing Peanut Gallery Hits Miers Hard

The Washington Post recently reported that Bush might go with a Supreme Court nominee that would soothe his conservative political base:

The president’s core supporters are urging bold action to sway the court to the right. Some think Bush might pick a hard-liner to keep his base happy and prevent a further drop in the polls.

It looks like Bush did just the opposite. Here what some conservatives are saying about the Miers nomination:

Michelle Malkin: “What Julie Myers is to the Department of Homeland Security, Harriet Miers is to the Supreme Court. It’s not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It’s that she’s so transparently a crony/’diversity’ pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste. If this is President Bush’s bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity–among conservatives as well as the nation at large–one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder.”

National Review’s David Frum: “The Miers nomination, though, is an unforced error. … [N]obody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States.”

American Spectator Blog: “ There is now talk of among some conservatives about a filibuster of the Miers nomination. …According to several White House sources, few inside the building took the possibility of a Miers nomination seriously. Now that it’s a reality, they are stunned. ‘We passed up Gonzales for this?’ was one conservative staffer’s reaction.”

Instapundit: “Perhaps they’ll change my mind, but so far I’m underwhelmed.”

Public Advocate: “The President’s nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia.”

RedState.org: “Color me less than thrilled . . . I just can’t think that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job.”

National Review’s Corner: “It’s an inspiring testament to the diversity of the president’s cronies. Wearing heels is not an impediment to being a presidential crony in this administration! I can only assume that the president felt that his support was slipping in this important bloc, and he had to do something to shore it up.”

Powerline Blog: “A Disappointment: Harriet Miers, that is. I’m sure that she is a capable lawyer and a loyal aide to President Bush. But the bottom line is that he had a number of great candidates to choose from, and instead of picking one of them–Luttig, McConnell, Brown, or a number of others–he nominated someone whose only obvious qualification is her relationship with him.”

Southern Appeal: “I am done with President Bush: Harriet Miers? Are you freakin’ kidding me?! Can someone–anyone–make the case for Justice Miers on the merits? Seriously, this is the best the president could do?”

Right Wing News: “Disaster, Thy Name Is Harriet Miers: George Bush’s decision to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is bitterly disappointing. Miers is a Bush crony with no real conservative credentials, who leapfrogged legions of more deserving judges just because she was Bush’s pal.”



This poor woman is going to go back to Texas with a complex. So what's wrong with Gonzo? He won't make a lifetime commitment?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Hey, hey, hey


Perhaps we should interview “Hecht” and the offended party “Priscilla Owen” and ask them what they think about their bed partner nomination to the supreme judge seat, BTW didn’t Pricilla Owens was also considered?


Perhaps the fight was for Owens.


I tell you Mr. Bush love his people especially the weird kind.

Icarus Rising I have to give it to you, starting with Roberts, all these people look androgynous me.


Perhaps the new look in the court will be "Updated" it will be nice to see the new two attractions performing in the circus that has become the supreme court.:@@

I bet religious leaders most be scratching their heads right now and screaming for the elimination of the supreme court.


Oh, I forgot DeLay and Frist are . . . unavailable for coments



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735
Now's not the time to be rabid, now's the time to recognize a gift when it arrives under the tree.


No, of course not. Bush flinched and did exactly what the emerging majority asked. The only problems Democrats seem to have with her is they can't stop laughing, but they will support this "no confidence" vote Bush has made in his own ability to stack the bench.

Meanwhile speaking of rabid...


From the American Spectator site,

"Just spoke with a staffer for a conservative member of the Judiciary Committee whose boss is extremely unhappy about the nomination of Harriet Miers.

"We heard her name. We made it clear that she was unacceptable as a nominee on the basis of qualifications and her views, which we simply don't know anything about," says the staffer. "We worked with her on policy issues, though, before she was elevated to White House counsel and let's just say we were underwhelmed."

"There is now talk of among some conservatives about a filibuster of the Miers nomination. Never mind the Al Gore donations or the money that was floated to the DNC when Miers was a managing partner in a law firm, those can be explained away as "good for the business of the firm...

"According to several White House sources, few inside the building took the possibility of a Miers nomination seriously. Now that it's a reality, they are stunned. "We passed up Gonzales for this?" was one conservative staffer's reaction. "I don't know much about Gonzales, but I think I know enough that he's more of a conservative than Harriet is."


Of course, there's nothing in the world wrong with filibuster. It's a hallmark of the majority/minority ebb and flow. It's just funny when the current majority is considering filibustering themselves. Especially after the public relations campaign to make fillibuster such a dirty word. Guess Harriet's "faith" is about to come under attack by "unconstitutional anti-Christian" Republicans.

Implosion fans should really set the Tivo for this hearing. It'll be popcorn stuff.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   
She's probably the burnt offering that Bush put up there, in hopes that she'll be turned down. Then we get to see and hear the rest of the story....



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I think she's going to be a conservative, Bush has known her for 20 years and I'm sure he knows exactly how she feels about a plethora of issues. I seriously doubt she's going to be anything like a Souter.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

from RANT
I don't think anyone (other than some on the far right of the far right) suspects she's actually gay, just another in the Family Values Inner Circle of neo-con eunuch foot soldiers that's never had a date.

That's probably why she's had a long history of donating to the Dem's, including Gore, Bentsen, and others. Sort of an "escort service", eh?


[edit on 3-10-2005 by jsobecky]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
She's probably the burnt offering that Bush put up there, in hopes that she'll be turned down. Then we get to see and hear the rest of the story....


Yup. Conspiracy theorists convinced Bush knows what he's doing suspect an unqualified candidate was hoisted over the heads of many others more qualified just so the Democrats (already primed for war) could knock her down in a very thoughtless reactionary way and he could nominate who he really wants as a "you left me no alternative."

Even more paranoid conspiracy theorists however think the Democrats saw the rope a dope coming a mile away, and literally roped the dope.

Time will tell. But I'm having fun watching.

Here's her 1989 application to the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Here's her 1989 application to the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas.




Rant you are the greatest, you have manage to dig out more stuff that I am, and I am still looking.

Say it say loud you got "Insiders information"


I think the democrats should keep the littler lady where she is at.


She and Chief Justice Roberts are going to be a nice addition to the supreme court after all.




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join