[oldgoat]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100400954.html



What do you guy's think of this ??

[luvtolean]

I think George F Will hates Dubya.

[colryn]

Nothing like being a friend of the president. He will give you a job for your lifetime.

I think it's BS.

[seamus]

Originally Posted by oldgoat

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100400954.html

What do you guy's think of this ??

I'll have to read the article several more times before I truly understand it...

"...Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due..."

Not that I don't understand all the big words, but is there really a need to speak like this? I got it, he's smart, but this is ridonkulous.

I wouldn't say he doesn't like GW. It doesn't really seem like too many people, even GW's own party, like this choice. I'm still not decided myself as I'm still researching and listening. So far, it doesn't look like she has a leg to stand on. She hasn't even done the obligatory news conference yet. Roberts was right up there from day one speaking on his own behalf.

[oldgoat]

I'm not sure what to think about the S.C. appointments, seems like all of the nominee's are friends of the current President be it Dem or Rep.
Shouldn't there be some requirements to get this job ?

[luvtolean]

There is...they have to be a member of the BAR, and pass the confirmation hearings.

[sheepofblue]

I agree, in more simple sheep talk:
She has not shown in 61 years that she is up to the task. There is no reason to believe that the president nor congress will defend the constution therefore why should we trust them. I could give a rat's behind if the nominee is a he/she nor the amount of skin pigment rather I want someone that is intelligent and will defend the constitution not quote French law.

She gets so far and I plan on writing both AL Senators asking she be rejected.

[Mo Noyz]

Aw c'mon, Sheeply. How can you give her 4 thumbs down? What do you even know about her?

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Aw c'mon, Sheeply. How can you give her 4 thumbs down? What do you even know about her?

That her biggest qualifications are:
Bush's attorney <- so what

A women <- so what, if you choose to descriminate there are many qualified ladies if not it might still be the most qualified is a lady

She did meal's on wheels

There are many qualified choices this lady would not be on any list made (as pointed out by Mr Will)

[Mo Noyz]

So, screw the Senate hearings because she is completely unqualified?

That's rather short sighted, brother. I agree with you that there were many who were more qualified, but even that is somewhat subjective.

Remember, people knew very little about Roberts. Liberlas far and wide screamed bloody murder. Conservatives even fear him a little because they are not sure how "conservative" he'll end up being. But by the end of his hearings he had won a lot of fans. And Ms. Miers was a big player behind the scenes in that situation.

I say enough of damning her because of this or that. Let's see how she does during the hearings.

[Baketech]

[CBRVFR]

Hmmmmm.

I enjoy reading George Will. He's very intelligent and expresses his views precisely and entertainingly.

But my feeling is that, rather than being a true intellectual, he's primarily a really smart advocate for a particular brand of political thought. And as such, he cares more about his "team" than the strict truth.

I know next to nothing about the current nominee. But the standard that Will raises for her evaluation is interesting.

Originally Posted by G Will

constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Similarly revealing is the reason given to doubt her qualifications

Under the rubric of "diversity" -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender.

If my aged memory serves, -and please correct me if I'm not recollecting accurately- Will was a strong supporter of the nomination of Justice Thomas, whom, it is fair to say, hasn't really showed himself to be a leading intellectual light so far in his SC tenure, in the way that Justice Scalia has.

Similarly, I don't recall him raising the spectre of " identity politics" at that time. But both of these arguments could have been raised if Will really cared about these issues.

I believe that the reason for this is because Thomas was securely 'in the fold', and Will was comfortable with his basic values and beliefs, so he saved his criticism for those grandstanding asshats on the Judiciary committee who treated the Justice with such astonishing disrespect.

But Will fails to meet my litmus test for intellectual honesty: Your friends aren't always right, and your opponents aren't always wrong.

Meantime, I hope the Legislative Branch does a credible job of evaluating her real potential... but that would necessitate several of the members of the Judiciary Committee having lunch under a meteorite.

[Baketech]

That post was far too lucid for this board...

[CBRVFR]

Sorry...

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Aw c'mon, Sheeply. How can you give her 4 thumbs down? What do you even know about her?

She's really, really ugly. And those are hooves.





Is that better?

[Baketech]

My faith in the world has been restored...

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

So, screw the Senate hearings because she is completely unqualified?

That's rather short sighted, brother. I agree with you that there were many who were more qualified, but even that is somewhat subjective.

Remember, people knew very little about Roberts. Liberlas far and wide screamed bloody murder. Conservatives even fear him a little because they are not sure how "conservative" he'll end up being. But by the end of his hearings he had won a lot of fans. And Ms. Miers was a big player behind the scenes in that situation.

I say enough of damning her because of this or that. Let's see how she does during the hearings.

People knew little of Roberts opinions but everyone knew of his qualifications. Still unless she pulls a big f*****g rabbit out of the hat. Oh and slick speaking is not as important as constutional knowledge.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by CBRVFR

Hmmmmm.

I enjoy reading George Will. He's very intelligent and expresses his views precisely and entertainingly.

But my feeling is that, rather than being a true intellectual, he's primarily a really smart advocate for a particular brand of political thought. And as such, he cares more about his "team" than the strict truth.

I know next to nothing about the current nominee. But the standard that Will raises for her evaluation is interesting.



Similarly revealing is the reason given to doubt her qualifications




If my aged memory serves, -and please correct me if I'm not recollecting accurately- Will was a strong supporter of the nomination of Justice Thomas, whom, it is fair to say, hasn't really showed himself to be a leading intellectual light so far in his SC tenure, in the way that Justice Scalia has.

Similarly, I don't recall him raising the spectre of " identity politics" at that time. But both of these arguments could have been raised if Will really cared about these issues.

I believe that the reason for this is because Thomas was securely 'in the fold', and Will was comfortable with his basic values and beliefs, so he saved his criticism for those grandstanding asshats on the Judiciary committee who treated the Justice with such astonishing disrespect.

But Will fails to meet my litmus test for intellectual honesty: Your friends aren't always right, and your opponents aren't always wrong.

Meantime, I hope the Legislative Branch does a credible job of evaluating her real potential... but that would necessitate several of the members of the Judiciary Committee having lunch under a meteorite.

Nicely said.

[BDA116]

You know, I've been thinking about this and the "lack of qualifications" that is being tossed around. But here's my problem: What does everyone think the qualifications are? Of the 9 current (well, current before the latest turnover) judges, what dd (did) they all share in common? What MUST one have on their resume to qualify for the Supreme Court that Miers does not have?
I'll be honest with you here, after some thought I decided that I would actually PREFER someone that has not been a judge. Now, that is a blank check "qualification", but take everything else away and if you have someone that is a brilliant lawyer, knows the law and has a strong will to uphold the Constitution, why must they be soiled by being a judge - particularly a federal one?
Again, broad brush time, many of them are already set in their ways - and many in an incorrect manner.
Maybe I'm alone here, but I like the fact that she's not a judge.
Let the system work the way the Constitution intended it to. Let here have her hearings, here vote. After all, isn't that what this is all about?

[sheepofblue]

i agree that a nominee need not be a judge. A historian or other constitutional scholar would be qualified also.

[Mo Noyz]

Originally Posted by Baketech

That post was far too lucid for this board...

+1000

Originally Posted by CBRVFR

But my feeling is that, rather than being a true intellectual, he's primarily a really smart advocate for a particular brand of political thought. And as such, he cares more about his "team" than the strict truth.

VERY well said, my friend!!!

But Will fails to meet my litmus test for intellectual honesty: Your friends aren't always right, and your opponents aren't always wrong.

And here I thought I could always cut to the chase.

[Mo Noyz]

Originally Posted by Beedy A

Again, broad brush time, many of them are already set in their ways - and many in an incorrect manner.
Maybe I'm alone here, but I like the fact that she's not a judge.

You are not alone at all.

That actually makes TWO of us.

[jaim]

Presidents can nominate who they want. But they should add an IQ test to the requirements and maybe a psychological profile. With the number of lawyers walking about the U.S. it can't be that hard to become one. So how about screening for the smarter ones. And the ones without significant psychological issues. All people really want in a SC justice is someone who ifs very literate, understands the constitution, doesn't have a vendetta or agenda to push, and cannot be bought. Shouldn't be too hard to come by in Bush administration.