Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Meirs

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Meirs
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In yesterday's papers, there was a story that Arlen SPecter was hinting that Dobson, and perhaps other religious leaders, would be called upon by the judiciary committee to testify as to the assuruances they received from the white house concerning Meirs' qualifications to be a supreme court justice. Dobson has hinted previously that some of what he knows, he should not know... by in fact saying that things he knows he perhaps should not know. He may be called upon to testify as to the nature of things he knows. One question I have at this point is "Why shouldn't he know them?" The white house is certainly allowed to comment to private organizations about its nominees. So was there attorney client confidentiality issues? National Security issues? Or is Dobson just playing Big Man?

In today's papers, there are stories that the white house will not release Meirs' White House memos to the judiciary committee, which is upsetting most of the 18 members of that committee.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lady Starkiller
Member
Member # 2444

 - posted      Profile for Lady Starkiller   Email Lady Starkiller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
there are stories that the white house will not release Meirs' White House memos to the judiciary committee
Why did they nominate her, again?
Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why should those memos be released? Executive privilege; I don't think they need to be.

As for Dobson, that is a lot of noise over nothing. From what I know, Dobson knows some people who go to her church. They testify that she is a born-again Christian, etc., and Dobson has used this to re-assure his listeners.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why should those memos be released? Executive privilege; I don't think they need to be."

Because, presumably, the senate judiciary committee is supposed to make sure that Meirs is qualified to be a supreme court justice, and these memos are a substantial portion of her written work.

"As for Dobson, that is a lot of noise over nothing. From what I know, Dobson knows some people who go to her church. They testify that she is a born-again Christian, etc., and Dobson has used this to re-assure his listeners."

Well, no... Dobson has said that he receieved phone calls from the white house assuring him that Meirs will, in confirmed, support his political causes. Further, he's said that he learned things from those phone calls that perhaps he shouldn't know.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I still say who cares? I don't.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
who cares about which part?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who cares about the Dobson bit really?

The much more disturbing concern is that Miers has such little comprehension of Constitutional Law that the Administration is giving her a crash course cram session in Constitutional Law after she clearly showed her incompetence in Constitutional Law when she was asked to go back home and turn in a 2nd and better copy of her take-home exam before the Senate.

And, the fact that President Bush is nominating his personal attorney to the Supreme Court of the United States simply to prove that he can do so is particularly pathetic.

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is the kind of criticism that gets the Left into trouble in this country. I'll probably never understand why you guys do it. When the President appoints a ghastly nominee, you can either attack her by

A. attacking her credentials, pointing out that she's inarticulate and unqualified. Enough Republicans will agree with you on this one that the nomination will likely fail.

or

B. attacking her religion and cooking up conspiracy theories based on unfounded speculation, attacking her for being supported by people you don't like.

There weren't any "attorney-client" issues because the client has the option to share information at any time; the attorney is the one who is prohibited from sharing information. I very much doubt the President would get on to talking about National Security issues. My guess is that he told Dobson that Miers is pro-life and anti-SSM.

But a lot of the country agrees with her there, and those aren't good reasons to disqualify nominees. Her lack of judicial experience and (from what I've seen) weak explanations of her philosophy are. Why not focus all of your attention there?

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aerto
Member
Member # 2625

 - posted      Profile for Aerto   Email Aerto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No way those memos will be or should be released. They are protected by either executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, or both. These privileges need to be respected no matter who the president or client is or for what the memos are needed.

However, this illustrates the primary problem with the Miers nomination, lack of information. She simply has not produced enough work of the requisite caliber to determine if she is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Memos she wrote as head of the Texas Lottery Commission simply don't speak to her Supreme Court qualifications. Her memos to President Bush should not be released, but without them it is difficult to impossible to determine if she should sit on the bench.

Her lack of judicial experience alone is not enough to disqualify her from the Supreme Court. Many Justices, i.e. Rehnquist, have never been judges before sitting on the Court. What is disquieting about Miers is her lack of any sort of challenging/rigorous legal experience that demonstrates she has one of the best legal minds in the country. Thats why Roberts, though he had very limited judicial experience, was imminently qualified for his seat.

[ October 25, 2005, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Aerto ]

Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Weeder
Member
Member # 1046

 - posted      Profile for Weeder     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We used to think that the Roman emperor who made his horse Senator was over the top. Now I'm not so sure.
[Smile] .

Posts: 270 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"No way those memos will be or should be released. They are protected by either executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, or both. These privileges need to be respected no matter who the president or client is or for what the memos are needed."

While I agree that attorney client privelege should be protected, I'm not a big fan of executive privelege other then as a means of protecting the lives of americans. Anything that Meirs dealt with that would not put under cover agents or soldiers in imminent danger through exposure, should be released.

Further, if the major source of documents that can be used as a guage of fitness for office cannot be released because they are going to be kept confidential by the person doing the nominating for office, then perhaps the person doing the nominating should choose someone who has a greater amount of documents that can be examined to determine fitness for office.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Further, if the major source of documents that can be used as a guage of fitness for office cannot be released because they are going to be kept confidential by the person doing the nominating for office, then perhaps the person doing the nominating should choose someone who has a greater amount of documents that can be examined to determine fitness for office.
Is that the case?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aerto
Member
Member # 2625

 - posted      Profile for Aerto   Email Aerto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:

Further, if the major source of documents that can be used as a guage of fitness for office cannot be released because they are going to be kept confidential by the person doing the nominating for office, then perhaps the person doing the nominating should choose someone who has a greater amount of documents that can be examined to determine fitness for office.

I agree with this statement almost completely. The nomination of Miers appears to have been ill-conceived from the start, both politically and in terms of getting one of the best persons possible on the court. Unless some new development occurs, i.e. new document showing she is a brilliant legal mind, or she performs extremely well at the confirmation hearings, I will have a hard time supporting Miers nomination. And this comes from someone who supported almost all of Bush's judicial nominees up to this point.
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm pretty jaded about the games politicians play, so cut me some slack if I say that every time I see a "request for documents" related to a nominee that gets "rejected for X reason", I tend to think both sides are up to some shenanigans. The side requesting the documents may very well know that 'reason X' exists and is legitimate, but can use the inevitable refusal to howl that they aren't getting cooperation and therefore must reject the nominee, no matter the other information that is available. Meanwhile, the other side may withold perfectly applicable documents, for no good reason knowing that the contents of same could be used to discredit the nominee and hurt the chances for confirmation.

As such, I usually find the whole 'request for documents' charade a big 'ol non-issue.

As for Miers specifically, I've come out previously saying I thought she ultimately would not be confirmed, and I think that prediction is looking stronger with each passing day.

[ October 25, 2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Digger ]

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We used to think that the Roman emperor who made his horse Senator was over the top. Now I'm not so sure.

I might vote for the Caligula/Mr. Ed ticket in '08. It could hardly be any worse. [Big Grin]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I still think that Miers is playing wingman for an as-yet unnamed nominee.

Everybody looks tall when standing next to a midget.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I pretty much agree with Drake here. Usually the Bush administration is pretty good with politics, and I'd be surprised if they had truly mucked this one up as thoroughly as they appear to have.
Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Carl Rove is probably too busy defending himself from the whole CIA agent leak mess and didn't have time to devote to spinning this new supreme court nomination. IMO, thats a big reason why its going so badly for Miers.

I for one, hope Rove goes down in flames before this is all over.

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm beginning to think you're right, Drake. However, it's not a cost-free tactic. The public won't just forget the impression of the Miers nomination, because the admin will never be able to admit that they just used Miers. Besides, a crazy right winger could be filibustered.

Weeder - good one [Big Grin]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, I'm looking forward to a conservative filibuster of Miers.

^ ^
[Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Actually, I'm looking forward to a conservative filibuster of Miers."

Why filibuster when you can just vote 'no'? And for that matter, why vote when it is obvious you won't win? If the Republicans really can't get behind Miers, I don't think the administration would keep her as the nominee.

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" If the Republicans really can't get behind Miers, I don't think the administration would keep her as the nominee."

I forsee a big game of "chicken" over the withdrawal of her name. Withdrawing meirs would be a big loss for the administration, and as such, they're going to put off withdrawing her as long as possible. On the other hand, losing a vote is worse then withdrawing the nominee, so Bush can't leave her out there long enough to actually vote. But he might try to force senate republicans into line behind her by leaving her name out there. And I suspect he will do this... which puts the Senate Republicans in a bind. Do they vote for her out of party unity, or not? Bush might want to watch the WHIP count to the last possible minute, and then withdraw her only if he's assured of losing.

So... we might not see her name withdrawn for a while, and if enough senators "blink" she might pass with 51-55 votes.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the vote count was really as close as you say, I could see that scenario playing out. But I don't think it's going to be that close. It would only take 6 Republicans crossing the aisle to sink the nomination. Considering how much flak Miers is getting from the right, I think that's a no-brainer.

You wouldn't be implying that there are Democrats who would come out in favor of Miers are you? If that happened, we'd be in strange bedfellows territory indeed.

[ October 25, 2005, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Digger ]

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lady Starkiller
Member
Member # 2444

 - posted      Profile for Lady Starkiller   Email Lady Starkiller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The whole thing with Miers is the reason I haven't given up watching the news yet. It's great fun, watching coverage of the debate over her nomination. (Okay, I admit it - I just like watching politicians squirm...)
Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1