The shrub is nominating a WH councel for the Supreme Crt. Harriet Miers.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

It seems she is Cheney's choice and she has never been a judge before.

[DJ MEW]

1. I hope the Dems in the Senate can stop get together and stop this one.

Letting Roberts through was bad enough. But letting another conservative through would be bad, but letting one through that doesn't even have experience is really bad.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. From what I gather from what Russert was discussing, they feel that

it is to their benefit that there is no trail of judicial decisions for the Senate to follow. Apparently a more extreme version of Roberts in that sense.

I hope that the Dems put a stop to this.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. I wouldn't count on it.

Without a record to attack, it's going to be hard to justify much of a fight against her. I know that seems ass-backwards, but that's the way it goes with the whole "advice and counsel-turned rubber stamp" nomination process of the Senate.

[notadmblnd]

12. I would think that lack of judicial experience

would be more than enough of a reason to deny her confirmation to the court.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. The name "William Howard Taft" sound familiar?

Former Chief Justice with no prior experience.

[maine_raptor]

36. Taft was President before SC

I kinda think that counts as "experience".:eyes:

[MildyRules]

39. True, but not "judicial"

experience as the post to which he responded clearly called for.

[maine_raptor]

42. Called for where?

Constitution is silent on SC judges' qualifications. Up to Senate to decide.

[MildyRules]

43. I was responding to what this person called for

"I would think that lack of judicial experience
would be more than enough of a reason to deny her confirmation to the court." A poster answered that post with a post on Taft saying that Taft did not have JUDICIAL experience. You then said that Taft had been President and that was "experience."

You missed the point of the poster to whom you responded. And you missed my point as well.

Go back and read the posts.

[maine_raptor]

48. Actually I didn't. my remark was about Taft and his experience

As President, Taft had "judicial" experience, though not in the way as most would think of it. A president deals with "judicial issues" everyday...laws he proposes, those that he either signs or vetoes, etc.

Taft's "judicial" experience was from the other side of the street, so to speak, but it was there.

[MildyRules]

49. I see your point

I don't agree with the judicial aspect, but I can see where one might make that call. Thanks!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. You make it sound like he's the first and only.

Not having judicial (or presidential) experience has a long precedent. We need a lot more than that to fight this one.

[DJ MEW]

51. Rehnquist didn't have any prior experience

I have heard already that people are going to point to that since Rehnquist is still in peoples mind.

[MildyRules]

16. Didn't hurt

Fortas or Powell (to name two recent SCJs who were not judges).

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Cheney must be hedging his bets for the future.

What, does the man think he's going to live forever? If we put him through an arduous court case, the stress will probably kill him.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. "counsel". A Council is like a committee.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. Edited, thank you. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

40. "Counsel", not "councel".

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

45. lol! What do you expect before I had my coffee this morning! Peace. :)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. If it's Cheney's choice & no judgeship experience, Cronyism strikes again.

[RockaFowler]

9. Why not a Judge?

No paper trail I guess . . .
Aren't there any good judges out there for him to choose??

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. According to Bush Sr, Thomas was one of America's finest legal minds

Perhaps we are going to hear similar phraseology from Shrub.

[Inland]

8. The stealth candidate. No paper record

except memos that the WH will refuse to release.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. Refusing to release memos... Something they are adept at getting away

with.

[Inland]

50. Her sole qualification is that she works well FOR Bush.

That's it. She's a good aide. For all I know, that means she remembers that Bush takes two sugars in his coffee.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. Lol! Russert just said that the Dems are already saying..is this a case

of loyalty above competence? Shades of Michael Brown.

[LTR]

13. Looks like she used to be a Democrat

http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php

DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (D) $1,000
primary 11/03/88

GORE, AL (D)President
ALBERT GORE JR FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE INC $1,000
primary 02/16/88

BENTSEN, LLOYD SENATOR (D)Senate - DC
SENATOR LLOYD BENTSEN ELECTION COMMITTEE
03/30/87

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

18. You are good! What's interesting is that there was a 4 year gap between

her donating to Democrats to when she started to donate to Republicans. Sessions (yuck) was her first Republican.

[Stephanie]

25. Did she marry a Republican?

That might explain it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

52. In 1987, when she contributed to Lloyd Benson, she was listed as

Mrs. Harriet Miers, so I don't think marriage had anything to do with it. I have a feeling it was a strategic move on her part to boost her career. A woman lawyer in Texas who is a Democrat would be commonplace, but a Republican?

http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php

[Silverhair]

17. I was wrong. I had guess it would be Janice Rogers Brown. NT

[izzie]

19. Another inside the bubble person. Bad for is every day people.

It is nice to feed Bush's ego.

[Xipe Totec]

20. Stacking the deck for his impeachment trial n/t

[MildyRules]

21. Since the SC

doesn't "try" the President for impeachment (the President is tried by the Senate), it would make no sense to "stack the deck for his impeachment trial."

[Xipe Totec]

23. Not quite

A Supreme Court Justice presides over an impeachment trial.

[MildyRules]

24. Not "A" SCJ,

The Chief Justice. And "presiding over" isn't "trying."

[Xipe Totec]

27. Point taken, then we're screwed already

As presiding officer the judge arbitrates the rules of the trial, and controls the presentation of facts. That is enough to influence the outcome of the trial.

I never said a Supreme Court Justice would "try" the case, I said * was stacking the deck for his impeachment trial.

[MildyRules]

29. Then if that's what you meant,

*'s new SCJ nominee is irrelevant to that process.

[Xipe Totec]

53. That's what point taken means n/t

[maine_raptor]

32. Chief of SC duties during Impeachment limited to

the rules for the trial established by the Senate. Yes, he arbitrates the rules of the trial, but those rules are not his.

As to the presentation of facts....that is decided by a vote of the Senators sitting as triers of fact.

And IMHO, Bush won't be impeached before he leaves, sorry. :shrug:

[Xipe Totec]

54. We'll know more after the 2006 midterms

There's still a chance he'll be impeached.

And the CJSC arbitrates the rules, which means he can interpret them. Presiding over an impeachment trial is not a ceremonial post; there is real power to influence the outcome.

[jmm]

22. I've got to love how some woman was on CNN

a little while ago holding a list of official talking points and warning us that we will hear how she's a trail blazer. Not that being Bush's personal attorney ain't hard work but that if they really wanted a trail blazer I know they could've found hundreds of women more qualified than her.

[Silverhair]

26. Very little information is available on her.

I even dropped in on FR, and they don't know any more about her either. Just the press release and official bio stuff. Super stealth candidate, obvious accomplishments so she is smart.

Prediction: Roberts II

Democrats will make a lot of noise, then vote to confirm.

[maine_raptor]

30. I hope not...and I don't think so.

She's a stealth nominee and if the WH tries to keep her writings hidden and she answers questions (about herself and her work) like she has in past, then she might piss off a lot of Senators.

[Silverhair]

31. After Roberts, I am just not able to be optimistic.

Maybe I will be wrong.

[July]

47. Bush loyalist, no experience as a judge.

IOW, Bush learned nothing from the Michael Brown debacle.

[Junkdrawer]

28. Bush/Cheney are appointing their lawyers to the SC - they're covering...

their asses. Perhaps Fritzie is aiming high...

[dusty64]

33. Another unqualified

* crony. I'm sure how she would vote on important cases would be determined by a quick phone call to rove. This is ridiculous, the same finger in the eye tactic EVERY time.

[insane_cratic_gal]

34. Isn't it unprecedented

for someone on the supreme court, to not of been a judge? Isn't the point of the supreme court to make judgments?

[MildyRules]

35. See posts 15 and 16

No, it's not unprecedented.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

37. The shrub flubbed and caller her the President of her law firm. Law firms

don't have Presidents.

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. So how many cases will she have to recuse herself from

Since the apparent conflict of interest is so blatant?

[bettyellen]

41. stop the cronyism, it's killing america....

fillibuster. go ahead dems, you have the capital.

[in_cog_ni_to]

46. Now they won't have to release ANY of her papers either.

Just like Roberts' papers. COVER UP.