quote: Bush's only legal litmus tests relate to international law issues and authority of the presidency. I don't think that President Bush really places that high an emphasis on cultural issues. He didn't really use marriage, even when he was hurting in the polls and could have used it.
I totally agree. I don't think Bush cares a bit about gay marriage or abortion. Which is why I suspect his religious stance is mostly posturing. To quote the Oracle: "What do all men of power want? More power."
Oh, give me a break. I don't know much about this lady, and from the sounds of it neither do most of you. So why the assumption that she's an "intellectual featherweight"? She's very much an unknown quantity right now, and I'd like to learn a bit more before I pass judgment.
Her career as a lawyer, from what I've read, has been rather distinguished. She hasn't had any judicial experience, but neither had roughly 1/3 of all SCOTUS justices at the time of their installment, including former Chief Justice Rehnquist. Would I rather she have judicial experience? For sure.
But we've had plenty of excellent justices who had none, so it's one of many factors I'd weigh in coming to a conclusion about her suitability. Why the rush to condemnation? Give the lady a fair hearing.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Doesn't the President have the right to choose whoever he wants for the Supreme Court? I had heard that is one of the privileges of office, one that should not be questioned on ideological grounds.
And haven't I heard that he won the election with a majority of votes? Didn't he say he had a mandate? Since he has the people behind him, how can you question his decision? Isn't this a democracy, where the People decide?
You'd almost think that Clinton was still in office.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
That's too bad. I was hoping after the next assassination of a Supreme, we could have Bush for LIFE! <No, this isn't my evil twin - I'm really just kidding>
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
The only things I've found surprising about this nomination and Roberts's is that Bush has nominated such reasonable people. I was expecting another Bolton.
There could be some truth to the cronyism charge, but "intellectual featherweight"? I have to think that accusation is no more than an expression of Ivy League snobbery. Bush is smart enough not to hire stupid lawyers.
Regarding original intent: if the founders wanted us to interpret the Constitution this way, I have to think they would have (1) told us that that's how we should interpret it, and (2) elaborated on vague phrases like "due process of law" and "freedom of speech." Absent those items, there's no evidence that founders intended "original intent", hence a contradiction.
Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's too soon to judge this nomination. But my guess is that in the end it is the liberals who will have the most misgivings about Miers.
I came to that conclusion after a breakfast interview -- by coincidence the morning of the president's announcement -- with Leonard Leo, who is on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society to work with the White House on judicial confirmation issues.
The Federalist Society, an organization of conservative lawyers, has been influential in staffing the Bush administration and recommending candidates for the federal bench. Leo came late to the breakfast from a conference call, in which he was attempting to quash the arguments other conservative leaders were making against Miers.
He spoke as one who has known and worked with her for well over a decade, who has played host to her when she has been a Federalist Society speaker, and -- perhaps most significant -- who joined her in a battle to get the American Bar Association to rescind its resolution endorsing Roe v. Wade , the decision establishing a right to abortion.
The first thing Leo said was that Miers's statement accepting the nomination from Bush was significant to him. "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the Founders' vision of the proper role of courts in our society . . . and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution," she said. "When she talked about 'the Founders' vision' and used the word 'strictly,' " Leo said, "I thought, 'Robert Bork,' " Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court pick, who was rejected by the Senate after a bitter fight. "She didn't have to go there. She could simply have said, 'Judges should not legislate from the bench.' But she chose those words."
I asked if he was surprised that she did -- or whether it was consistent with what he knew of her judicial philosophy. He replied: "I'm not surprised that's what she believes. I'm surprised her handlers let her say it."
As for the fight within the bar association, Leo said that he and Miers and their allies argued that it was "inappropriate" for the organization to endorse Roe "when there are doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying legal doctrine."
Was she opposed to the Roe decision? I asked. "That was not the issue. The only way to fight this within the ABA was to talk about the process" by which the endorsement was made. "It took a lot of courage to be out front on that issue" within the bar association, "especially for a woman."
And then he added that Miers is "well-regarded by antiabortion leaders in Dallas" and has written a check to at least one such group.
Finally, I asked him to compare Miers to the justice she would be replacing, if confirmed. Unlike O'Connor, he said, "she believes in legal rules, that law has a content to it. She is not one who would vacillate back and forth in a world of murky standards, which is how I see Justice O'Connor."
Maybe that's what the president meant when he said he was confident she "won't change."