Would you support a Republican filibuster of Miers? Why or why not?
(Btw, I'm glad you've finally seen the light on this one. ALL conservatives should be pissed at this nomination; Bush had a carte blanche--an eleven person majority in the senate--and he wastes it on this clown. Unbelievable. Conservatives have been preparing for this moment for 40 years, and Bush blew it.
Gene Redlin
· 4 years ago
Rob, As much as I support our president, perhaps being full-on in opposition to Meirs will say more about the mood of the country and the conservative movement than all the editorial content in the world.
So, Ms Meirs, sorry.
It's like going deer hunting with one bullet. One shot. Hit or miss. The USA can't afford a miss here. Aim higher.
Tom_with_a_Dream
· 4 years ago
It has more to do with me not knowing what in the heck Bush is trying to do.
I don't know what Bush is thinking either, but I have settled in my mind that I will trust him. Not the best position he could have asked of us, true, but I am willing.
He has proved he is with us on several big-ticket items, although he certainly could have set himself up better by vetoing a bill or two, by securing that border, and by trying to control the belt size of the Bureaucracy.
Time will tell but for now, I believe Bush has appointed a Justice who will prove to be in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, as he promised during the campaign. Ask me in five years and I will be willing to admit defeat if I am wrong.
Leaders have an obligation to set the direction for the troops, and it is common for the troops to not understand why they must march in this-or-that direction. But since, by definition, they are in trees, and the leader (hopefully) is operating from a position of greater perspective, only the leader can see exactly how big the forest is, and in which direction it extends.
It's not a great argument to be sure, but Trust the President.
Sphagnum
· 4 years ago
It was a bad choice
Agreed...
and she should be denied appointment.
Disagree! On what basis should she be rejected? We howl loudly when Democrats oppose SCOTUS nominees for reasons like this. She is a bad choice, but one that Bush made. We elected him and this is what we get.
It's not as though she's unqualified, she's got great background in business law (which as Michael Medved was pointing out, no one on the SCOTUS does right now and 1/3 of the cases that came before the court last year dealt not with Constitutional law but with business law). She's also got great experience working for the President on legalities of executive powers.
Other than you wanting to make Bush "try again", why should she be opposed?
LoadTheMule
· 4 years ago
He has proved he is with us on several big-ticket items
Such as?
Regards...
Rob
· 4 years ago
Disagree! On what basis should she be rejected? We howl loudly when Democrats oppose SCOTUS nominees for reasons like this. She is a bad choice, but one that Bush made. We elected him and this is what we get.
Not if she is rejected and we get somebody else.
Would you support a Republican filibuster of Miers? Why or why not?
No, I wouldnt. I believe that all nominees deserve an up or down vote.
Btw, I'm glad you've finally seen the light on this one. ALL conservatives should be pissed at this nomination; Bush had a carte blanche--an eleven person majority in the senate--and he wastes it on this clown. Unbelievable. Conservatives have been preparing for this moment for 40 years, and Bush blew it.
I agree, except for the part where you say I've "finally seen the light." I haven't supported Miers at all. When she was first nominated (and I knew next to nothing about her) I did defend her alleged "lack of experience" by pointing out that former Chief Justice William Rehnquist was never a judge before the Supreme Court, but that's the extent of it.
There are much better candidates out there. Let Bush pick one of them.
I've got a couple of ideas as to why she was nominated. I won't go into detail on both, but lets just say that they involve no infighting over the nomination, and a non-confirmation.
Ryan, you did see where I said that I wouldn't support a fillibuster of Miers, right?
Rob, why are you being such an obstructionist? Do you hate America?
Did you actually read those links? The first one goes to post where I supported Reupblican efforts to quell a fillibuster, a position I still hold today. The second one doesn't even have to do with judicial appointments other than it points out a stupid Dem Senator bringing up Plame during a session on the Roberts appointment. The third one wasn't even written by me (it was written by Seth) and is 99% words directly from John Kerry's mouth.
What point is it, exactly, that you're trying to make? That I'm inconsistent on fillibusters? Hardly. I didn't support them during Roberts and I don't support them now. Not for judicial appointments, anyway. And the "hate America" comment is totally from left field. I've never said anything even remotely like that.
Btw: This =/ this.
Look at the dates on these two links. The second was written before the first. Roberts made some comments about stare decisis during one of the hearings that worried me. Later, he made other statements that quelled my worries.
Thatedguy:
I've got a couple of ideas as to why she was nominated. I won't go into detail on both, but lets just say that they involve no infighting over the nomination, and a non-confirmation.
I think your first option is the more likely one, which is sad in that Bush shouldnt be willing to sacrifice a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court for political gain.
Ryan
· 4 years ago
It's not about the filibusters - it's that you hammered the Democrats for opposing judicial nominees, but now you're opposing judicial nominees. The rhetoric is backfiring, especially over-the-top stuff like Seth's traitor remark.
As far as your conflicting statements, I don't see how you can resolve them. You don't believe the courts should overturn law, but you believe the courts should overturn Roe.
Rob
· 4 years ago
It's not about the filibusters - it's that you hammered the Democrats for opposing judicial nominees, but now you're opposing judicial nominees. The rhetoric is backfiring, especially over-the-top stuff like Seth's traitor remark.
I hammered Democrats for fillibustering, not for opposing. When it comes to judicial appointments I think the majority should rule. The Democrats weren't letting that happen because they weren't letting the appointments come to a vote.
As far as your conflicting statements, I don't see how you can resolve them. You don't believe the courts should overturn law, but you believe the courts should overturn Roe.
From the first post you linked to:
...Roberts statement about Roe and stare decisis is disturbing. Many Roe supporters would have us believe that overturning previous court decisions is an unheard of and/or extreme event. But its not. Plenty of precedent-setting Supreme Court rulings have been overturned when it was recognized that that the reasoning used in making them was flawed, not least among these Dredd Scott vs. Sandford, which ruled that black slaves were property and could never be citizens.
Dredd Scott was clearly a flawed ruling and so is Roe. There is no Constitutional right to an abortion nor does the Constitution's provisions for privacy rights prevent the elected representatives of the people from banning medical procedures found to be abhorrent by the majority.
Roe can be overturned and should be overturned. There is no question that the ruling was not based on a valid interpretation of the law. One can only hope that Roberts recognizes this as he sure isn't being very clear on it right now.
Clearly I'm saying that Supreme Cases can, and should be in some instances, overturned.
What Roberts said (from the second link):
I had someone ask me in this process -- I don't remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?
And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but, as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy's going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy's going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath.
The oath that a judge takes is not that, I'll look out for particular interests, I'll be on the side of particular interests. The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. And that's what I would do.
What I said:
As I've stated before, it is not the court's duty to fix what is wrong with our law through their rulings. Their job begins and ends with applying what is the law to a given situation. If the law of the land states that people with blond hair and blue eyes cannot vote judges must uphold that law regardless of how they feel about it.
If the law needs to be changed then it must be done through the legislature. We should not, cannot, take short cuts just because the issue is of great importance.
I can see where maybe you were confused. When I said that it is not the court's job to fix what is wrong with law I was defining "law" as what is written by the legislature, not what is interpreted by the court system. The court can, and should, overturn its own rulings (which are precedent setting law) when it becomes clear that the ruling in question was wrong or misguided in its interpretation of the law as it is actually written by the legislators.
Obviously, I feel that this is the case with Roe vs. Wade and feel that if Roberts is as strict an originalist as he claims to be he will recognize the flaws in the Roe ruling and vote to overturn it.
Seth Yantiss
· 4 years ago
The rhetoric is backfiring, especially over-the-top stuff like Seth's traitor remark.
Over-the-top, eh? Whatever... He IS a traitor.
Sphagnum
· 4 years ago
I think I'd like a little clarification on this, Rob, if you don't mind. So let me ask you this.
When Roberts was voted on, his vote should have been 100-0. He was obviously qualified to fill the position. Yet, he was voted against by 22 Democats. Similarly, Harriet Miers IS qualified for this position (she may not be the BEST, but she's obviously qualified). So my question is, do you think it was wrong for any of the 22 to vote against Roberts, and if so, why would voting against Miers be any different?
Sphagnum
· 4 years ago
Oh, I don't expect unanimous agreement on ANY nominee, but I think that she is qualified enough that we could expect near unanimous agreement. She isn't unqualified... I think I may take offense at the notion that we should vote against her for the sole purpose of forcing the President to chose someone else. That is overstepping the bounds of Congress.
The President chooses, the Congress consents. It isnt' up to the Congress to decide if there are better picks and to send her back for someone better... She's good enough to be confirmed from what I've seen so far, subject to change I suppose during the hearings.
Rob
· 4 years ago
I think that, given any candidate, Senators should vote their conscience. If they honestly believe that the nominee is acceptable for the position they're meant to fill then they should vote that way. And vice versa.
What I opposed was not opposition to Roberts, or any judicial nominee, but rather an obstruction of the process. Delaying a vote so that it never happens is a dirty trick. Actually voting, regardless of how the voting goes, is how its supposed to work.
I guess I don't understand why you'd expect there to be a unanimous agreement on any nominee.
Seth Williams
· 4 years ago
I have to go with Rob on this one P. Moss, if Congress feels there are better qualified people who could do the job, they have every right to refuse to consent.
Rob
· 4 years ago
I think I may take offense at the notion that we should vote against her for the sole purpose of forcing the President to chose someone else. That is overstepping the bounds of Congress.
Well, personally, I think that voting against her for the purpose of having the President pick someone better is exactly why Congress was given the power to "advise and consent" on judicial appointments.
The Flickertail Journal: ND Re
· 3 years ago
[...] Say Anything:After much careful consideration and reflection over Bush's nomination of Miers for the Supreme Court I have come to the following conclusions: It was a bad choice and she should be denied appointment.Of course, that's after this:I believe that Republicans are fully within the bounds of their power to change the rules and bypass the Democrat filibuster. The Senate is allowed by the Constitution to change its rules. If the Republicans have the vote necessary to change the rules I see no real problem in them doing it.And this: Just another obstruction technique. The longer they beat this dead horse the less time Republicans have for furthering their agenda.And this: [...]
All Comments
(Btw, I'm glad you've finally seen the light on this one. ALL conservatives should be pissed at this nomination; Bush had a carte blanche--an eleven person majority in the senate--and he wastes it on this clown. Unbelievable. Conservatives have been preparing for this moment for 40 years, and Bush blew it.
So, Ms Meirs, sorry.
It's like going deer hunting with one bullet. One shot. Hit or miss. The USA can't afford a miss here. Aim higher.
I don't know what Bush is thinking either, but I have settled in my mind that I will trust him. Not the best position he could have asked of us, true, but I am willing.
He has proved he is with us on several big-ticket items, although he certainly could have set himself up better by vetoing a bill or two, by securing that border, and by trying to control the belt size of the Bureaucracy.
Time will tell but for now, I believe Bush has appointed a Justice who will prove to be in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, as he promised during the campaign. Ask me in five years and I will be willing to admit defeat if I am wrong.
Leaders have an obligation to set the direction for the troops, and it is common for the troops to not understand why they must march in this-or-that direction. But since, by definition, they are in trees, and the leader (hopefully) is operating from a position of greater perspective, only the leader can see exactly how big the forest is, and in which direction it extends.
It's not a great argument to be sure, but Trust the President.
Agreed...
Disagree! On what basis should she be rejected? We howl loudly when Democrats oppose SCOTUS nominees for reasons like this. She is a bad choice, but one that Bush made. We elected him and this is what we get.
It's not as though she's unqualified, she's got great background in business law (which as Michael Medved was pointing out, no one on the SCOTUS does right now and 1/3 of the cases that came before the court last year dealt not with Constitutional law but with business law). She's also got great experience working for the President on legalities of executive powers.
Other than you wanting to make Bush "try again", why should she be opposed?
Such as?
Regards...
Not if she is rejected and we get somebody else.
No, I wouldnt. I believe that all nominees deserve an up or down vote.
I agree, except for the part where you say I've "finally seen the light." I haven't supported Miers at all. When she was first nominated (and I knew next to nothing about her) I did defend her alleged "lack of experience" by pointing out that former Chief Justice William Rehnquist was never a judge before the Supreme Court, but that's the extent of it.
There are much better candidates out there. Let Bush pick one of them.
Btw: This =/ this.
http://www.thatedeguy.com/archives/2005/10/bush-nominates-miers-to-supreme-court
Did you actually read those links? The first one goes to post where I supported Reupblican efforts to quell a fillibuster, a position I still hold today. The second one doesn't even have to do with judicial appointments other than it points out a stupid Dem Senator bringing up Plame during a session on the Roberts appointment. The third one wasn't even written by me (it was written by Seth) and is 99% words directly from John Kerry's mouth.
What point is it, exactly, that you're trying to make? That I'm inconsistent on fillibusters? Hardly. I didn't support them during Roberts and I don't support them now. Not for judicial appointments, anyway. And the "hate America" comment is totally from left field. I've never said anything even remotely like that.
Look at the dates on these two links. The second was written before the first. Roberts made some comments about stare decisis during one of the hearings that worried me. Later, he made other statements that quelled my worries.
Thatedguy:
I think your first option is the more likely one, which is sad in that Bush shouldnt be willing to sacrifice a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court for political gain.
As far as your conflicting statements, I don't see how you can resolve them. You don't believe the courts should overturn law, but you believe the courts should overturn Roe.
I hammered Democrats for fillibustering, not for opposing. When it comes to judicial appointments I think the majority should rule. The Democrats weren't letting that happen because they weren't letting the appointments come to a vote.
From the first post you linked to:
Clearly I'm saying that Supreme Cases can, and should be in some instances, overturned.
What Roberts said (from the second link):
What I said:
I can see where maybe you were confused. When I said that it is not the court's job to fix what is wrong with law I was defining "law" as what is written by the legislature, not what is interpreted by the court system. The court can, and should, overturn its own rulings (which are precedent setting law) when it becomes clear that the ruling in question was wrong or misguided in its interpretation of the law as it is actually written by the legislators.
Obviously, I feel that this is the case with Roe vs. Wade and feel that if Roberts is as strict an originalist as he claims to be he will recognize the flaws in the Roe ruling and vote to overturn it.
Over-the-top, eh? Whatever... He IS a traitor.
When Roberts was voted on, his vote should have been 100-0. He was obviously qualified to fill the position. Yet, he was voted against by 22 Democats. Similarly, Harriet Miers IS qualified for this position (she may not be the BEST, but she's obviously qualified). So my question is, do you think it was wrong for any of the 22 to vote against Roberts, and if so, why would voting against Miers be any different?
The President chooses, the Congress consents. It isnt' up to the Congress to decide if there are better picks and to send her back for someone better... She's good enough to be confirmed from what I've seen so far, subject to change I suppose during the hearings.
What I opposed was not opposition to Roberts, or any judicial nominee, but rather an obstruction of the process. Delaying a vote so that it never happens is a dirty trick. Actually voting, regardless of how the voting goes, is how its supposed to work.
I guess I don't understand why you'd expect there to be a unanimous agreement on any nominee.
Well, personally, I think that voting against her for the purpose of having the President pick someone better is exactly why Congress was given the power to "advise and consent" on judicial appointments.