Bush picks aide for Supreme Court

[redsquirrel]

Bush has picked the replacemant for O'Connor. Good news is that it isn't Gonzales, she appears to be an old friend of his.

President George Bush has nominated a close aide, White House counsel Harriet Miers, for a key Supreme Court vacancy.

If approved by the Senate, Ms Miers - who has never sat as a judge - will take up the place left by Sandra Day O'Connor who stepped down in July.

Democrats are likely to fight the nomination if they think it tips the court's balance towards the right.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4304684.stm

 

[quamp1]

And here's what some people are saying about it.

This is the one I agree with the most:

"This is a smart move. You try to pick a nominee that Democrats won't be able to criticize as much because they are a woman or minority. This is a classic Clarence Thomas strategy." Artemus Ward, Northern Illinois University political science professor.

 

[siarc]

from the christian science monitor ~

Reaction to Miers's selection was swift and varied, from across the political spectrum. Some conservatives expressed enthusiasm; others moaned that she is unqualified and, more troubling, a stealth nominee who cannot be counted upon to side with the conservatives, especially on incendiary social issues such as abortion, gay rights, and the church-state divide.

 

[oi2002]

This is absurd, has Rove taken to drink? Dubya has just been raked over the coals for putting a second rate lawyer chum in charge of FEMA now I'm reminded of Caligua making his horse a senator.

Hilzoy over on Obsidian Wings surveys a field of appalled GOP loving commentators:

As I said earlier, I would probably have voted to confirm John Roberts, on the grounds that almost anyone this President nominated to the Supreme Court would probably be worse. Unfortunately, today we see what worse would look like: Harriet Miers. Conservatives are, for the most part, upset. Bill Kristol is "disappointed, depressed, and demoralized".
...
Andrew Sullivan:

"Think of her as a very capable indentured servant of the Bush family. (...) I think they've found someone whose personal loyalty to Bush exceeds even Gonzales'. And in some ways, I see this very personal, very crony appointment to be a response to being told he couldn't pick his main man, Alberto."
...
John Podhoretz (before the pick was announced):

"I am going to assume that this is a classic Bush head-fake gambit. If I'm wrong, I will spend the weekend banging my head against a concrete wall. This is the Supreme Court we're talking about! It's not a job for a political functionary!"
...
Krempasky at RedState:

"Mr. President, you've got some explaining to do. And please remember - we've been defending you these five years because of this moment."

Bill Kristol fears for the future of the GOP:

I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?

Kevin Drum has a theory:

If Bush had picked a real judge with a moderate record, his base would have been absolutely sure they were being betrayed. With Miers they're not. She allows him to avoid a fight while suffering only momentary venting from his supporters. From that perspective, it was a smart choice.

and more moaning GOP hacks here.

The Bull Moose is delighted to see the GOP split.

There are two distinct camps among the righties over Harriet - the fawning faithful and the reality based conservatives. The fawning faithful are largely faith-based.
...
In contrast to the faith-based righties are the reality based conservatives whose views are represented by Bill Kristol and most of the folks at the National Review. They look at Miers' credentials and pedigree and are repelled by the nomination.

So you've got the dreamy neocons confronted with the withering stupidity of the religous right over something they really care about: law.

The Rude Pundit is so stunned he barely manages to be rude:

And then Ponnuru joined the party liberals have been having for about, let's say, four and a half years now: "[T]he argument that the administration making is, this was a good decision because the president made it and the president makes good decisions. And that might be enough for a monarchy, but it's plainly not a persuasive argument in a democratic system." Which used to be called "questioning a President at a time of war" or "treasonous" or some such shit when it was the rest of us who asked Bush to actually persuade us that he's right. Hey, National Review, welcome back to America - now why don't you help clean up the fuckin' mess you made?

Actually I was thinking this might be a Rove thing. Rove never sought to broaden the base but rather on keeping the existing base content and eager to defensively mobilize. Dubya is going to really piss of the Wilsonian neocons like Kristol by sneaking away from Iraq next year so why not focus on the lumpen Religous base. The parties future is with the easily hearded party flock not the PNAC wolves.

 

[laptop]

George Will, yet, is not impressed:

...there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954.html

Miaow!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

This nomination surprised me. She's a nonentity, but I agree that he went with her as a sort of 'shot up the middle' nominee who won't foment major liberal opposition, but at the same time, won't immediately leave his conservative and fundamentalist constituency feeling that it has been sold a bill of goods.



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051005/D8D1JRI00.html

 

[nino_savatte]

And here's what some people are saying about it.

This is the one I agree with the most:

So true and it would seem that, once again, the Dems have been wrong-footed like the eejits they are. My main objection would be the fact that she has absolutely no judicial experience. Surely to sit on the bench of the highest court in the land, one has to have certain qualifications. These seem to be lacking in spades in Mier's case.

The title "president" should be changed to either "emperor" or "king" to reflect the true nature of the position.

 

[Poi E]

I think judges of the highest court in the land should have had previous judicial experience, but maybe I'm a "liberal" or whatever those simple folk call it in the USA.

 

[nino_savatte]

Originally Posted by oi2002
I'm reminded of Caligua making his horse a senator.

That's funny, I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think judges of the highest court in the land should have had previous judicial experience, but maybe I'm a "liberal" or whatever those simple folk call it in the USA.

Rehnquist didn't have any.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Rehnquist didn't have any.

He did have plenty of "good ol' boy" credentials, though.

 

[pbman]

I think judges of the highest court in the land should have had previous judicial experience, but maybe I'm a "liberal" or whatever those simple folk call it in the USA.

30 years ago or so, almost none of the justices had such expirance.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

30 years ago or so, almost none of the justices had such expirance.

So have you been happy or unhappy with the performance of the court in the last 30 years.

 

[newharper]

That's funny, I was thinking the exact same thing.

yup, but another view could be that he's getting 'medieval on our asses' and appointing a family retainer to the swing post position on the supreme court.

 

[pbman]

So have you been happy or unhappy with the performance of the court in the last 30 years.

Good point, none of them should have preiviouse judical expirance.

 

[pbman]

yup, but another view could be that he's getting 'medieval on our asses' and appointing a family retainer to the swing post position on the supreme court.

You not getting someone you like anyways.

This way you don't even get to whine about it.

I had my reservations myself, until i saw that the ACLJ aproved her.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

30 years ago or so, almost none of the justices had such expirance.

That ain't true.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

yup, but another view could be that he's getting 'medieval on our asses' and appointing a family retainer to the swing post position on the supreme court.

The swing position, eh?

 

[pbman]

That ain't true.

The warren court. or the one of the previouse one.

Its a modern thing to only apoint justices with juditial expirance.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

 

[Poi E]

Good point, none of them should have preiviouse judical expirance.

I'll still try and help your folk when it all goes to shit, pb.

 

[nino_savatte]

30 years ago or so, almost none of the justices had such expirance.

Which makes a complete mockery of the judicial system. No wonder the laws in the States are so fucked. Political appointees are being placed in influential positions - not for their experience or qualifications - but for their loyalty and service to the president-emperor. It's a recipe for badly written laws and ideologically skewed 'judgements' made by attorneys who are inexperienced in judicial matters.

 

[nino_savatte]

yup, but another view could be that he's getting 'medieval on our asses' and appointing a family retainer to the swing post position on the supreme court.

Aye, that's another angle.

 

[quamp1]

The warren court. or the one of the previouse one.

Its a modern thing to only apoint justices with juditial expirance.

Sorry. Wrong!
Of the members of the supreme court that have been confirmed, only 20 or so (out of about 104) did not have any judicial experience.
It's a real crap shot whether or not things will work out.

 

[oi2002]

30 years ago or so, almost none of the justices had such expirance.

 

[pbman]

Sorry. Wrong!
Of the members of the supreme court that have been confirmed, only 20 or so (out of about 104) did not have any judicial experience.
It's a real crap shot whether or not things will work out.

Link that.

I know one of the courts only had one with previouse expirance.

Anyways i like to see them independent of the courts they are ruling for and agaisnt.

They need to be complety independent.

 

[pbman]

I don't like them covering for their friends and overlooking the same old shit they always do.

I like the idea of outsiders being in charge at the top, otherwise its to incestuous.

We need independent review of the constionality of the lower courts.

Your not going ot get that if you only appoint from the lower courts.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Sorry. Wrong!
Of the members of the supreme court that have been confirmed, only 20 or so (out of about 104) did not have any judicial experience.
It's a real crap shot whether or not things will work out.

It's 41.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The list of 'no prior experience' Supreme Court justices includes Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, William O Douglas, Felix Frankfurter and Louis Brandeis.

If you knew anything about these men and their place in American Supreme Court jurisprudence, you'd realize how inapplicable your photo is.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Earl Warren:

In 1953, Warren was appointed Chief Justice of the United States by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. To the surprise of many, Warren was a much more liberal justice than had been anticipated. As a result, President Eisenhower later remarked that nominating Warren for the Chief Justice seat "was the biggest damned fool mistake I've ever made in my life." Warren was able to craft a long series of landmark decisions including Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954), which overthrew the segregation of public schools; the "one man, one vote" cases of 1962–1964, which dramatically altered the relative power of rural regions in many states; Hernandez v. Texas, which gave Mexican-Americans the right to serve on juries; and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966), which required that certain rights of a person being interrogated while in police custody be clearly explained, including the right to an attorney (often called the "Miranda warning").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren