?

Log in

No account? Create an account
At least it's not Gonzales - The Fucking Bluebird of Goddamn Happiness [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Zoethe

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

At least it's not Gonzales [Oct. 3rd, 2005|07:14 am]
Zoethe
[Current Mood |nervousnervous]

Bush has nominated 60-year-old Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. She is White House counsel and a Bush insider and has never served as a judge, so has no judicial record. I predict a senatorial hearing process as cordial as the one for Roberts and a quick confirmation - I mean, what are they gonna ask her about, really? She's clearly conservative, being a White House insider like she is. But I don't have enough information to know how she'd vote on any of the swing issues.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: crwilley
2005-10-03 11:57 am (UTC)
They want me to accept someone who's never been a judge before as a Supreme Court Justice? Umm. I don't think so? (Or is it more common than I might think?)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2005-10-03 12:27 pm (UTC)
Not unheard of, but I don't have time to do the research. You don't have to have a judicial record to be a Supreme.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
From: ex_rita
2005-10-03 12:20 pm (UTC)
She doesn't hate them, but she doesn't see anything wrong with profiling them at the airport.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: ls56
2005-10-03 12:23 pm (UTC)
*sigh*
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jagette227
2005-10-03 12:30 pm (UTC)
I just have a hard time believing that someone that has never been a lawyer or a judge can make compentent decisions in the highest court in the land.

Or are they saving her for the Anna Nicole Smith Trial?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2005-10-03 01:18 pm (UTC)
She IS a lawyer. She is White House Counsel and has had a lengthy law career. Just never a judge.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: leila82
2005-10-03 12:52 pm (UTC)
I saw that this morning, and I'm dying to know more about her and there's NOTHING! I mean, considering the administration, it seems futile to hope for much, but Sandra Day O'Connor ended up being the swing vote, and I'd like to see that again.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: leila82
2005-10-03 12:53 pm (UTC)
Oh, and on the thought of Gonzales - he spoke at my commencement a couple of years ago, before he was made Attorney Gen. I think quite a few people in the (South Texas) audience were Not Impressed.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: miripanda
2005-10-03 12:55 pm (UTC)
How is it possible to nominate someone who's never been a judge, ever???
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2005-10-03 01:20 pm (UTC)
No requirement to judge before playing in the Show. Like many of our diplomats who have no experience before being given cushy posts....
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: simianlovedoc
2005-10-03 12:57 pm (UTC)
My thinking on it was that because she has no judicial record the confirmation process should be more rigorous. I also find it interesting that the first I heard about this 7 A.M. press conference was on NPR as it woke me this morning. There wasn't a peep about it yesterday, that I heard. Talk about stealth nominee. The only way to make it more stealthy would have been to have her land a B2 at National and drive over in an unmarked car.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2005-10-03 01:20 pm (UTC)
Should be, certainly. Will be? I'm thinking no.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
From: (Anonymous)
2005-10-03 01:10 pm (UTC)
I think you will see a more involved process in her confirmation. In the past I think a non-judical person was ok being elevated to the Supreme Court, but in this day and age, myself, I feel that we need to have a seasoned jurist on the Court.

I also think this is shrewed move on President Bush's part, because as has been mentioned above, she has no prior record to question her on, but also I think that he is taking a risk alienting his constiuentcy that follows the Court. Granted she is probably soundly conservative, but this term, you are going to see some very contentious issues, such as the Oregon assisted death constitutionality brought before the Court.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: unixwiz
2005-10-03 01:10 pm (UTC)
I think you will see a more involved process in her confirmation. In the past I think a non-judical person was ok being elevated to the Supreme Court, but in this day and age, myself, I feel that we need to have a seasoned jurist on the Court.

I also think this is shrewed move on President Bush's part, because as has been mentioned above, she has no prior record to question her on, but also I think that he is taking a risk alienting his constiuentcy that follows the Court. Granted she is probably soundly conservative, but this term, you are going to see some very contentious issues, such as the Oregon assisted death constitutionality brought before the Court.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: suzieboz
2005-10-03 02:31 pm (UTC)
How much do you want to bet that the main reason he nominated her was because she is a woman and that will take some "pressure" off of him (and as usual divert attention from the usual crime and games going on in DC....)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2005-10-03 02:50 pm (UTC)
I'm certain that it was a consideration.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nikkif
2005-10-03 03:25 pm (UTC)
The article I read said that more than one Democratic Senator suggested her to Bush, and that the strongest opposition to her so far is from ultra-conservatives, who are worried that she is a Methodist, because they apparently are "pro-abortion." (Who knew?)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2005-10-03 03:32 pm (UTC)
Well, that is heartening.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dramatic_flower
2005-10-04 03:55 am (UTC)
All I can think of is hearing my moderate and apathetic friends saying, "What's the worst Bush can do...he only has four years."

My answer is and always has been: Plenty.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2005-10-04 09:38 am (UTC)
His teeth have been pulled to a certain extent by the hurricane incompetence, and he didn't try to shove someone openly fundamentalist down our throats. But he's doing plenty of damage on many fronts, not the least of which is the environment, where he is dismantling much conservation legislation.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)