If another USSC justice goes, best nominee? Harriet Miers!

[Little-Acorn]

I hear she's looking for work now.

Miers was nominated by W a few years ago, but was shot down mostly by conservatives who were worried that her complete lack of any judicial record, gave us no evidence she'd be a law-abiding conservative instead of being another Souter. Though W swore up and down she'd be an excellent conservative, one who would rule according to what the Constitution actually says, his word was all we had, and that wasn't enough. There was nothing you could really get a handle on.

Now, with Dems in a slight majority in the Senate, that lack of a record could actually work to Repubs' advantage. IF, of course, she really is a conservative who will obey the Constitution. That's still a big IF, we don't know any more about her now that we did then.

But her total lack of a record also prevents Dems from pointing to anything in her background suggesting she might - horrors - rule that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided... or the McCain-Fiengold law case... or even US v. Miller. There's just no evidence there, either. IF she'd actually be a law-abiding judge as W says, the Dems would have a hard time shooting her down.

Sure, I wish we had something more solid than that. But anything more solid, might just let the Dem majority eliminate a candidate completely. Miers might be the best thing we've got left, all in all.

Comment?

 

[glockmail]

Bush should nominate the most conservative candidate possible, with a long record to show for it, then make the GOP senator minority fight for the guy, all the while pointing out the Democrat's hypocrisy at not giving the guy a vote.

 

[Avatar4321]

Bush should nominate the most conservative candidate possible, with a long record to show for it, then make the GOP senator minority fight for the guy, all the while pointing out the Democrat's hypocrisy at not giving the guy a vote.

I agree. but then i think more tactical. make the Democrats fight over them put it all over the news. and if the guy fails, nominate someone else just as conservative. Eventually the public is going to get tired. Democrats will cave

 

[Little-Acorn]

Bush should nominate the most conservative candidate possible, with a long record to show for it, then make the GOP senator minority fight for the guy, all the while pointing out the Democrat's hypocrisy at not giving the guy a vote.

You mean, he should do what he's been doing for the last six years? Resulting in every really law-abiding candidate, getting filibustered until they withdraw?

GREAT idea.

And now the Dems wouldn't even have to filibuster, since they are in the majority now.

If W couldn't defeat a filibuster when his party was in the majority, what makes you think these tactics would suddenly succeed for a Repub minority?

The time to bang on Democrats and show them for the anti-constitutional fanatics they are, was when Repubs were in the majority. They mostly failed in that quest, mostly through lack of Repbulcain huevos, and now you want to try it again from an even weaker position?

W has two years left. If a vacancy opens any time soon, the goal will be to get a law-abiding justice in there, not to make Democrats look bad. And he doesn't have a huge long time to do it.

 

[glockmail]

You mean, he should do what he's been doing for the last six years? Resulting in every really law-abiding candidate, getting filibustered until they withdraw?
......

It ain't Bush's fault, but the GOP senators. They should make the Dems filibuster for real, by bringing in cots and such until they eventually run out of gas.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It ain't Bush's fault, but the GOP senators. They should make the Dems filibuster for real, by bringing in cots and such until they eventually run out of gas.

The current "silent filibuster" is the result of a Senate rule passed years ago, saying they didn't actually have to talk continuously to filibuster. I agree it's an abonination, no matter which party is in power. But the chance to change it, was when Repubs were in the majority. They didn't. It's pretty unlikely to change now that they are in the minority. THough I wish they would try.

As I said, though, the goal now (if a vacancy opens up) is to get a law-abiding judge on the Supremes' bench in place of the anti-constitutional one leaving. Not to make Democrats to look bad. If the GOP tries to do the latter, it will screw it up as usual and accomplish nothing. They must concentrate on the former. And Miers seems the best pick, for the reasons (non-reasons, actually) that I gave earlier.

 

[Annie]

Miers is not the answer:

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=348039&postcount=13

There are lots more from that time, just search Harriet Miers, use 'show posts' on the search.

 

[glockmail]

The current "silent filibuster" is the result of a Senate rule passed years ago, saying they didn't actually have to talk continuously to filibuster. I agree it's an abonination, .....

With the rules so far out of whack maybe the best we can hope for is a suicidal Japenese pilot with a 747 ala a Tom Clancy novel. I'm sick of this.

 

[Avatar4321]

It ain't Bush's fault, but the GOP senators. They should make the Dems filibuster for real, by bringing in cots and such until they eventually run out of gas.

Alittle late to do it now

 

[trobinett]

Yea, Avatar is right, the right would only be doing what the left was doing, only, as history has proven, its anti-productive.

Too be disruptive, for the sake of being disruptive, is stupid, and solves nothing.

A fact, that the Democrats never understood.

 

[glockmail]

Alittle late to do it now

Agreed, demonstrating their lack of fortitude, and the reason they lost the mid terms.

 

[CockySOB]

I don't think GWB should nominate a hard right-winger as a token to paint the Democrats as obstructionists. Likewise, I don't want GWB to throw an unknown like Meiers up, because history tells us that Republican nominees who come in without a history tend to shift to the left while on SCOTUS.

I want GWB to nominate conservative justices who rule on Constitutionality only and not on social policy. If Roe v. Wade is to be overturned, it should be overturned as a matter of law, not as a matter of social policy. As long as the nominee(s) abide that distinction, I should be able to tolerate them.

 

[trobinett]

I don't think GWB should nominate a hard right-winger as a token to paint the Democrats as obstructionists. Likewise, I don't want GWB to throw an unknown like Meiers up, because history tells us that Republican nominees who come in without a history tend to shift to the left while on SCOTUS.

I want GWB to nominate conservative justices who rule on Constitutionality only and not on social policy. If Roe v. Wade is to be overturned, it should be overturned as a matter of law, not as a matter of social policy. As long as the nominee(s) abide that distinction, I should be able to tolerate them.

I'm not a strict constitutionalist, I believe the constitution should be a living document, able to change with the society it PROTECTS.

I would hope, that if a law is overturned , that it would happen because of a change in EITHER law, or social policy, otherwise, why do we need Supreme Court Justices?

 

[Little-Acorn]

I'm not a strict constitutionalist, I believe the constitution should be a living document, able to change with the society it PROTECTS.

It is able to change. Article 5 gives it that ability, and it has been exercised what, 27 times now?

The great thing about it is, it will change only if large majorities of Congress and the states, approve of the change. This limits the kind of willy-nilly changes that individuals such as kings, dictators etc. are prone to.

What I don't like is when people ignore that large-majority method, and just ignore the Constitution altogether. That's been done a lot here, especially since the 1930s, and has to stop.

I believe the constitution should be a living document

It is more correctly regarded as an ENDURING document. Its basic philosophy is that the powers of the central government should be strictly limited, and changed only by the abovementioned large-majority-approval process. At the same time, states and lower governments powers, and the rights of the people, are NOT limited by the Constitution.

I believe that philosophy is an excellent one, and should not be lightly disregarded. But the people who are ignoring the Constitution, have done it for the express purpose of ignoring that philosophy, and giving the Federal govt more and more power WITHOUT the approval of large majorities for the change. It's no secret why, of course: Those people know that large majorities would not approve of what they are trying to do, from having the Fed govt run schools, to censoring political speech, to redistributing wealth, to banning religion.

Whenever I hear the phrase "living document", I know that more erosion and disregard of the Constitution's basic purpose is on the way.

 

[glockmail]

I'm not a strict constitutionalist, I believe the constitution should be a living document, able to change with the society it PROTECTS.

I would hope, that if a law is overturned , that it would happen because of a change in EITHER law, or social policy, otherwise, why do we need Supreme Court Justices?

Usually you and I see eye to eye here but not on this issue. The Constitution is a set of laws (rules) which we (and the guv'mint) are set to live by. Would you change the rules of a poker game while it is being played? Of course not, so why change the Constitution for the whims of society.

SCOTUS is there to interpret the laws of the US, not make new ones or change them or offer interpretaions based on what they like about Europe. For that, we have elected officials. They are called Senators, Congressmen, and the President.