Nomination of Harriet Mier for the Supreme Court

ARTIC-U-LATE · #1 10-03-2005, 10:45 AM

Hello GC Family. During the "Today Show," there was an interruption to show the nomination. Though extremely excited to see a minority nominated, I have reservations about this woman's ability to be an effective
judge.

1. She has never been a judge. Experience should be mandatory. In this position she will have influence on a legal system that serves an entire country and sets an example for others. Being the head of a Texas lawfirm doesn't cut it.

2. Morale. Will the other judges warmly welcome someone who lacks experience in that particular positioning.

3. Societal Views. If I recall, there is no record of her views in existance. It will be the job of the senate and the house to flush any and all needed information from her during the hearings.

I look forward to hearing what happens next. I am sure most of you keep up with current events. It will be in our best interest to say tuned, there is a strong possibility that the conservatives are attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

CrimsonTide4 · #2 10-03-2005, 10:51 AM

from GMA's website, Harriet Miers' biography

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supre...1170572&page=1

Honeykiss1974 · #3 10-03-2005, 10:57 AM

I just posted this in another thread but Bush mentioned that she is not the first to not have experience as a judge - in fact 35 previous court judges haven't (I think he mentioned Requinst as being the most recent one).

Learned something new.

TonyB06 · #4 10-03-2005, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTIC-U-LATE
Hello GC Family. During the "Today Show," there was an interruption to show the nomination. Though extremely excited to see a minority nominated, I have reservations about this woman's ability to be an effective
judge.

1. She has never been a judge. Experience should be mandatory. In this position she will have influence on a legal system that serves an entire country and sets an example for others. Being the head of a Texas lawfirm doesn't cut it.

2. Morale. Will the other judges warmly welcome someone who lacks experience in that particular positioning.

3. Societal Views. If I recall, there is no record of her views in existance. It will be the job of the senate and the house to flush any and all needed information from her during the hearings.

I look forward to hearing what happens next. I am sure most of you keep up with current events. It will be in our best interest to say tuned, there is a strong possibility that the conservatives are attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

"minority?" did I miss something, bruh? Politically speaking, this is surprising. Given the "pass" the Ds signaled, then gave to Roberts, I'd think this woman is going to get severe scrutiny. That she would replace O'Connor's swing vote, rather than Rehnquist's conservative spot, just ups the ante for both sides.

Politically, given Bush's weakened political state, post-Katrina, declining polling numbers, etc.., I'd expected someone more readily "confirmable" but hey, this is legacy time. Bush's political strength may affect many elements of this:

-How hard will he/can he fight for Miers if she runs into opposition?
-how hard will elements of his own party, some positioning themselves for their own futures, post-Bush, fight for her?

Chuck D says don't believe the blank slate hype. Every president has a dayum good idea of the views of someone they're giving a lifetime appointment to. Her blank slate, however, will be a green light for Ds to press her to the wall. Plus, the D's got rolled last time. They have to fire up their base (06 mid-terms) by flexing their political muscle. Peep which advocacy groups line up for/against her early. that may be an indicator of where she stands politically.

morale at the SC? please. the SC has been a political entity for many years now. the justices are big boys/girls who know and have worked the political/legal game. Lifetime appointments, self-set workload, hours....we should all have such morale issues.

...shoot, let me get there. (making me the 2nd Alpha bruh justice the court has seen) --> "justice TonyB06, um, what is your vote?"

me: hol up, playa. My Bengals are on the one yard line, about to take it to the house! I'll be there in a minute

mccoyred · #5 10-03-2005, 11:39 AM

Unfortunately, white women are considered 'minority'.

Did you all notice that she has received several other appointments from Dubya? She also dated him, per the bio. Scary!

ARTIC-U-LATE · #6 10-03-2005, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mccoyred
Unfortunately, white women are considered 'minority'.

Did you all notice that she has received several other appointments from Dubya? She also dated him, per the bio. Scary!

^^My point exaclty about the term "minority." Being PC, whether I personally think that way is a different thread.

Bro. Tony...I am far from gullible about the interworkings of our judical branch, just trying to be optimistic. In my fantasy SC, issues such as these would be raised/genuinely cared about. No dice huh?-lol

The Cushite · #7 10-03-2005, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mccoyred
Unfortunately, white women are considered 'minority'.

Did you all notice that she has received several other appointments from Dubya? She also dated him, per the bio. Scary!

She didn't date W, she actualy dated the TX Supreme Court Justice that is quoted at the end of the Bio.

A Law professor from Georgetown was on TV this morning stating that she may not have enough qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice, and that even conservatives may think that W overlooked a lot of more qualified conservative judges in order to nominate his "friend".

Blackwatch!!!!!!

BusinessApe1906 · #8 10-03-2005, 05:38 PM

for future candidacies? Will there ever be more than 1 Black or 1 women to serve at the same time?

BusinessApe1906 · #9 10-03-2005, 05:43 PM

Doesn't a long cconfirmation benefit the pres.? Gets some of the heat off of him (while he continues his ever bubbling hustle) and puts it on her, for awhile.

He'll get a few requests to justify his nomination, but while she's in the thick of the grilling, he'll be profiting from the rebuilding of N.O. and Iraq, right?!

Tickled Pink 2 · #10 10-03-2005, 05:56 PM

I reckon he didn't learn from his appointment of the last FEMA director, huh?

AKA2D '91 · #11 10-03-2005, 06:01 PM

Obiviously not! *smirk*

TonyB06 · #12 10-03-2005, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BusinessApe1906
Doesn't a long cconfirmation benefit the pres.? Gets some of the heat off of him (while he continues his ever bubbling hustle) and puts it on her, for awhile.

I doubt it. DC works on momentum and perception. If she's seen as a losing battle, then the pres. needs to cut his losses, flip the script and be seen as a change agent. If this nomination runs into trouble (who knows at this point), Bush's opponents will do everything they can to keep it in the spotlight.

I think this one is a risk...

darling1 · #13 10-03-2005, 10:30 PM

the main issue i have with dubya is that he KNOWS this woman. he has not made a legitimate decision yet.

but just like roberts, this biddy is going to slide right in there.

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTIC-U-LATE
Hello GC Family. During the "Today Show," there was an interruption to show the nomination. Though extremely excited to see a minority nominated, I have reservations about this woman's ability to be an effective
judge.

1. She has never been a judge. Experience should be mandatory. In this position she will have influence on a legal system that serves an entire country and sets an example for others. Being the head of a Texas lawfirm doesn't cut it.

2. Morale. Will the other judges warmly welcome someone who lacks experience in that particular positioning.

3. Societal Views. If I recall, there is no record of her views in existance. It will be the job of the senate and the house to flush any and all needed information from her during the hearings.

I look forward to hearing what happens next. I am sure most of you keep up with current events. It will be in our best interest to say tuned, there is a strong possibility that the conservatives are attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

CrimsonTide4 · #14 10-04-2005, 10:32 AM

I guess I never paid attention but this morning while watching GMA, they said that Clarence Thomas has only been an attorney for about 5 years when he became a Supreme Court justice.

But I certainly feel there are at least 100 other women attorneys/judges who are more qualified than Harriet Miers. Plus sounds like with a 91 year old mother who requires round the clock care, that becoming SCJ is not really in her best interest at this time.

Little32 · #15 10-04-2005, 12:38 PM

I have always feared the potential damage that could be done to women's rights and civil rights struggles with the appointment of judges that shift the political balance of the court. This is what worried me when G. W. got elected the first time.

I just think that anyone who will be appointed to the Supreme judiciary, should have some experience as a judge.

On a side note:

What I am curious about is Roberts. Is it always the case that when the chief justice retires whoever is nominated fills that spot?