| 0 |
Subject: SCOTUS nominee jockying
Posted by: Perm Dude
- [5510572522] Tue, Apr 20, 2010, 12:36
The GOP has already come out against whoever it is that Obama will nominate to replace Stevens on the bench.
The White House response has been that the solid GOP opposition frees him to pick whoever he wants, without bothering to even talk with them.
Probably not the response they were hoping for... |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 71 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Thu, May 13, 2010, 14:19
|
There were two problems with Miers:
- She was an idiot
- She was not conservative enough for the GOP base
|
| 72 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Thu, May 13, 2010, 14:22
|
Well the blatant cronyism was also an issue.
|
| 73 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Thu, May 13, 2010, 14:24
|
It was, though I bet if Samuel Alito had been White House counsel and Bush had nominated him, he would have been confirmed. The cronyism was an issue with Bush moreso than Miers herself, who would not have survived a Senate confirmation hearing.
|
| 74 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Thu, May 13, 2010, 14:34
|
At the time Madman raised the issue that she failed in her capacity as WH Counsel by simply accepting the nomination, because the cronyism was so obvious and undenyable. FTR she didn't just serve him in the WH. Wiki:Miers met George W. Bush in January 1989 at an annual Austin dinner affair for legislators and other important people. Nathan Hecht, a mutual friend and Miers's date, made the introduction. Miers subsequently worked as general counsel for Bush's transition team in 1994, when he was first elected Governor of Texas.
In 1995, George W. Bush, then Texas governor, appointed Miers to chair the Texas Lottery Commission.
Miers resigned from the lottery commission in early 2000, a year before her term ended. She said her resignation had nothing to do with lagging sales in the system's biggest game, Lotto Texas, but rather that she wanted to allow her successor time to prepare for rebidding the lottery's primary operator contract.
There was some speculation during Bush's 2000 campaign that Bush would appoint Miers to the position of Attorney General. This was seen as possible with her trusted role as Bush's personal attorney and her many appointments during his tenure as governor. This also recalled William French Smith who was Ronald Reagan's personal attorney before being named Attorney General. Miers was not chosen and John Ashcroft became Attorney General instead.
In January 2001, Miers did follow Bush to Washington, D.C., serving as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary during the first two years of his presidency. In that role, she opposed the administration's 2001 decision to stop cooperating with the ABA rating of judicial nominees. In 2003, she was appointed Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. In November 2004, Bush named her to succeed Alberto Gonzales, his nominee for Attorney General, to the post of White House Counsel, the chief legal adviser for the Office of the President.
Miers is said to be one of Bush's closest personal friends and appears given to effusive praise for the President. According to former Bush speechwriter David Frum, Miers has called Bush the most brilliant man she had ever met[20] and says he was the "best Governor ever."[21] She also stated that "serving President Bush and Mrs. Bush is an impossible-to-describe privilege" and noted that Bush's personal qualities "make a brighter future for our nation and people all around the world possible."[22]
|
| 75 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, May 13, 2010, 15:35
|
Miers was another example of George Bush rewarding loyalty over competency. Her nomination was one of the first instances of the rest of the GOP rejecting him. I believe it caught him completely by surprise.
|
| 76 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, May 13, 2010, 16:19
|
I think if blatant cronyism was an issue then it would be safe to say Kagan would not be confirmed.
|
| 77 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Thu, May 13, 2010, 16:32
|
What makes her a crony?
|
| 78 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, May 13, 2010, 17:51
|
i realize this is just fodder for Baldwin to get off track and ignore how wrong he was in post 63, but what the heck...
Republican Brown calls Kagan pro-military
|
| 79 | Boldwin
ID: 8423823
Thu, May 13, 2010, 18:02
|
One thing is for sure. If you are hispanic or gay, between the two Obama picks, you will have one vote in the bag before the case is ever heard.
|
| 80 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Thu, May 13, 2010, 18:20
|
How about being a man? Woman? Black? Catholic? Jewish? Old? Ivy League grad?
|
| 81 | Boldwin
ID: 8423823
Thu, May 13, 2010, 18:42
|
They have demonstrated extreme bias in the areas I mentioned. That is why I am not claiming they are biased in other areas until demonstrated.
|
| 82 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Thu, May 13, 2010, 19:39
|
Where can this proof of extreme bias be found?
|
| 83 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, May 13, 2010, 19:44
|
As opposed to regular bias. Can the Far Right differentiate between the two?
|
| 84 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Thu, May 13, 2010, 20:13
|
Razor - I would assume Sotomayor's "wise latina" statement and Kagan's unlawful barring of military recruiters from Harvard's campus over military policy on gays would be evidence in this regard.
|
| 85 | Mith
ID: 482583111
Thu, May 13, 2010, 20:37
|
MBJ
If Sotomayor's 'wise latina' comment was an example of bias, it was very narrow and I have trouble believing you really think it is anything close to an extreme case. Are you sure you haven't bought into the disingenuously out-of-context presentation of that quote by the rightist media?
Further, Kagan did not bar recruiters from Harvard's campus! She prevented the military from using the school’s Office of Career, a policy that was already in place prior to her tenure.
|
| 86 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Thu, May 13, 2010, 20:43
|
MITH - I wasn't stating an opinion on whether it was extreme bias. I was answering Razor's question.
|
| 87 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Thu, May 13, 2010, 20:51
|
Yeah, but if it isn't true it doesn't exactly count as a valid demonstration. :)
|
| 90 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Fri, May 14, 2010, 17:21
|
Justice questions way court nominees are grilled
Justice Anthony Kennedy decried the way some senators question Supreme Court nominees, defended President Barack Obama's pursuit of empathetic judges and rebutted the idea of activist courts in a speech Friday in south Florida...
..."An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don't like," he said.
|
| 91 | Myboyjack
ID: 447112610
Fri, May 14, 2010, 17:26
|
Lol. It's a little late to get worried about the Senate grilling
nominees.
|
| 92 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jul 20, 2010, 15:28
|
Kagan clears committee, to be sent to the Senate.
Lindsey Graham votes for nomination. In a classy statement: "What's in Elena Kagan's heart is that of a good person who adopts a philosophy I disagree with," Graham said. "She will serve this nation honorably, and it would not have been someone I would have chosen, but the person who did choose, President Obama, I think chose wisely."
As a result, look for a primary challenge for Graham, a guy with solid conservative cred. It is the price one pays, as a conservative, for not toeing the "I hate liberals always" meme that holds sway over the GOP.
|
| 93 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012
Tue, Jul 20, 2010, 15:34
|
I really don't see the problem with nominating a person to the Supreme Court who has no judicial experience. After all, Barack Obama is President and he has no executive experience and look how that is turning out.
|
| 94 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Tue, Jul 20, 2010, 16:38
|
John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, Harlan Fiske Stone, Robert Jackson, Felix Frankfurter, Joseph Story and Roger Taney would all like a word with you.
so would the other 31 Supreme Court justices who had no prior judicial experiences. But those 9 were listed by name because they're among the most influential justices we've ever had.
|
| 95 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012
Wed, Jul 21, 2010, 13:11
|
Do you like all of those justices? Do you believe all of them were good?
|
| 96 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Jul 21, 2010, 15:24
|
Do you like all of those justices? Do you believe all of them were good?
i don't have an opinion of a majority of people who served before my time, other than what the history books say, and the history books say they were among the best Justices this nation has ever had.
feel free to come up with another unrelated point though, you're 2-for-2 so far.
|
| 97 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Wed, Jul 21, 2010, 18:06
|
Roger Taney one of the best ever?
|
| 98 | Seattle Zen
ID: 1410391215
Wed, Jul 21, 2010, 19:45
|
Taney sucked.
An embarrassment to the Maryland Bar.
|
| 99 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 00:04
|
i read your link, SZ. the one that says Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, author of the dissent on Dred Scott, held his former colleague in high esteem despite their differences in that case. Writing in his own memoirs, Curtis described Taney:
He was indeed a great magistrate, and a man of singular purity of life and character. That there should have been one mistake in a judicial career so long, so exalted, and so useful is only proof of the imperfection of our nature. The reputation of Chief Justice Taney can afford to have anything known that he ever did and still leave a great fund of honor and praise to illustrate his name. If he had never done anything else that was high, heroic, and important, his noble vindication of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the dignity and authority of his office, against a rash minister of state, who, in the pride of a fancied executive power, came near to the commission of a great crime, will command the admiration and gratitude of every lover of constitutional liberty, so long as our institutions shall endure.
Modern legal scholars have tended to concur with Justice Curtis that, notwithstanding the Dred Scott decision and the furor surrounding it, which will forever be attached to his name, Taney was both an outstanding jurist and a competent judicial administrator.
he made some awful decisions. it doesn't make him an awful judge.
|
| 100 | Boldwin
ID: 40648227
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 09:28
|
The Left Behind
For a guy with no prior Poliboard posting experience, you are really growing on me. 8]
|
| 103 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 11:27
|
Seems a little over the top to attack a newbie, yes?
honestly, no more than fawning over someone who hasn't posted anything of real substance yet.
|
| 104 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 12:14
|
"Seems a little over the top to attack a newbie, yes?"
Point me to the evidence which contradicts my statement, and I'll happily apologize. Until then, a spade's a spade.
In this thread, his first post was a random thinly disguised Obama slam with no substance to it.
In the Deepwater Horizon thread, his first post was a thinly disguised Obama slam (or, more accurately, a "why isn't everyone slamming Obama... not that I would ever do such a thing" two step with no substance to it.
So, based on those pieces of evidence, it seems completely justified by the facts. Tell me where I'm wrong.
|
| 106 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 12:26
|
Thanks for elevating the discussion. So that'd be what, two months for what you just posted?
|
| 107 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 12:40
|
DW, you attacked someone who is new to the boards and hasn't even said the things you insist on attacking him for.
I'm deleting the posts in question. In the future, you can attack positions but not people. Keep that in mind.
|
| 108 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 12:42
|
#103: Yes, it is. Personal attacks are specifically out-of-bounds. Needless fawning by someone looking for a friend is not.
|
| 109 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 12:48
|
PD-- thanks for leaving post 105 up since it's not OK to attack people. Maybe you could do something about that? Or is it only OK to personally attack me?
As for attacking the position--I don't even know what the position IS, for cryin' out loud. There WAS no position except "let's make a random Obama slam out of nowhere that has basically nothing to do with the discussion". That was kind of the whole point. And he was doing precisely the things that I was "accusing" him of -- throwing out random slanders/accusations without providing any evidence to support them. This is not a personal attack, no matter how much you might wish to twist it as such.
|
| 110 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 12:51
|
For that matter, your very own post takes a cheap shot at Boldwin--perhaps you should delete it yourself.
|
| 111 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 12:57
|
#109: You certainly aren't permitted to attack the person in lieu of knowing what the position is. You want to try to tease it out you can do so. but attacking the poster simply isn't permitted.
#110: I'm happy to edit that post should Baldwin ask. I don't think he really cares one way or the other.
|
| 112 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 12:57
|
Have the normal people here ever tried just not responding to some of the people around here? Is it possible to just not allow them to post? On the Yahoo forums you can set people to "ignore".
Back on topic, you wouldn't hire a brain surgeon with no medical experience or an accountant who never did math right? So why nominate someone to the Supreme Court (the HOF of living judges to allow a sports comparison) whose never judged? Can I get voted into the Baseball HoF? How about first base for the Phillies? I never played but so what.
|
| 113 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 12:58
|
As has been pointed out, there have been a number of cases of people on the court who have not been judges themselves--many of them have served illustriously. I don't think lack of judicial experience has been demonstrated to be a detriment to actual SCOTUS careers.
|
| 114 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 13:03
|
112: Past evidence suggests you're wrong. Consider why this is the case, and then reflect on why this is a really bad comparison for you to make.
Or, alternatively, Did you realize that, before they were Supreme Court justices, not a single Supreme Court justice ever actually served on the Supreme Court? How can we expect these people to serve competently on the Supreme Court of the United States when they have never served on the Supreme Court of the United States before? It's inconceivable!
|
| 116 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 13:12
|
I don't care what line of work it is Perm Dude, if I can choose between somebody with experience and a noob I'm choosing the guy with experience.
The argument about well those guys got nominated and they didn't have experience. Well it was dumb to nominate those people too. Its like work. You work hard, produce results, have the educational pedigree, and who gets the promotion to CEO, some slackjaw from Customer Service. What company in their right mind would do that? Why would our government?
I get it if Obama wants a lefty on the bench. That's the game they all play, but don't you people have anybody sitting on a bench somewhere that's better than this lady?
|
| 117 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 13:13
|
Also, since you've responded two more times since in this thread, including where I pointed out that 105 was inappropriate, and seem to be ignoring the email I sent in about it as well, I take it that you aren't going to do anything about it and that starting a post with "you're pathetic" is okay as long as certain people say it?
I'm trying to figure out why that is. If it's because it takes more than eight minutes to delete a post, then I apologize. If not, I'd love an explanation.
|
| 118 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 13:17
|
116 is a laughably bad comparison. "The slackjaw from Customer Service"? Really?
So the dean of Harvard Law School is a "slackjaw" in the field of law? I want to make sure I have your argument right. I mean, it's not exactly like she's an associate french fry dispenser at the University of Phoenix here, which is what you're trying to make it sound like.
|
| 124 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 13:43
|
I don't believe anyone can look at Kagan and think she hasn't worked in the field. She's got a legal mind, is smart, and has the understanding necessary to do a good job.
No, this isn't like taking a CR and making her a CEO.
|
| 125 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 13:46
|
Why did my post # 120 get deleted? How did that violate the rules?
|
| 126 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 13:47
|
dunno. Wasn't me--I didn't see it.
|
| 128 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 14:22
|
125 - that post was off topic, individually targeted, inflammatory, seen by the target already, and no useful purpose was served by leaving it out there. Move on.
|
| 129 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 16:17
|
post 112 Back on topic, you wouldn't hire a brain surgeon with no medical experience or an accountant who never did math right? So why nominate someone to the Supreme Court (the HOF of living judges to allow a sports comparison) whose never judged? Can I get voted into the Baseball HoF? How about first base for the Phillies? I never played but so what.
this was addressed in my post 94. to which, you seem to have roundaboutly responded to with:
The argument about well those guys got nominated and they didn't have experience. Well it was dumb to nominate those people too. Its like work. You work hard, produce results, have the educational pedigree, and who gets the promotion to CEO, some slackjaw from Customer Service. What company in their right mind would do that? Why would our government?
Because judicial experience and judicial knowledge can be too different things. you don't have to be a judge to understand the law. you can be trained in other fields, and still have a superior mind for the law.
you're ignoring mountains of evidence that show, for this particular job, you don't need judicial experience.
|
| 130 | Seattle Zen
ID: 1410391215
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 17:40
|
TLB 116
The best judges are the best legal minds. That can come from sitting on the bench, but it also can come from practicing in front of the bench or teaching at a law school.
Every brain surgeon at one point picked up a scalpel for her first time...
|
| 131 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 21:57
|
Every brain surgeon at one point picked up a scalpel for her first time...
Well yeah - and sliced into the brain of a cadaver. They don't start on live tissue, you know. Plus, they go to school to learn how to be a surgeon. No one goes to Judge School.
Anyway, brain surgery is a lousy analogy anyway. We're not hiring her to perform ministerial duties like a brain surgeon or a district court judge, that's never been what being a member of that Court has been about. Legal knowledge and a keen, alert mind together with a sense of history and equity and justice are still the things we look for in a justice. I think experience as a judge on an important Court is the best method of assesing whether a candidate posseses those qualities, but it's not the only method.
I think that NFL Head Football Coach is a better fit for SCOTUS. And sure, years ago lots of guys were hired with no previous coaching experience. That's not the trend, however; and when it happens, it a legitimate point to raise.
|
| 132 | Janessa
ID: 975530
Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 01:55
|
Four score and seven minutes ago, I read a sweet article. Lol tahnks
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|