Like Kryptonite To Stupid
» Breaking News
Paul Benedict, Of “Jeffersons” Fame, Dies
Florida Man Assaults Girlfriend With Hamburger
Doctor Gets Text Message Help With Surgery
Charmane Star [Breaking Beauty]
Miko Lee [Breaking Beauty]
Does Harriet have some explaining to do?
Bush’s Guard service may affect Miers nomination
A former Texas lottery official, who claimed that then-Gov. George W. Bush’s desire to cover up his National Guard record helped steer decisions about a key lottery contract, said he wants to talk to senators about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’ possible role in that effort.
Oliver Willis
owillis@gmail.com
AIM: oliverwill
OW @ MySpace
OW @ Facebook
OW @ Flickr
OW @ XBox Live
OW @ Twitter
Dan Rather, call your office!
Are we really going to let the president appoint his own goddamn lawyer to the supreme court? If that’s not a conflict interest then I’ve never seen a conflict of interest.
I suppose that’s okay with Frank and his ilk.
Wilbur, I think its the best we can expect from the neocon crowd. That is why I’m inclined to not oppose this nomination, unless she won’t answer questions at the confirmation hearing.
She does have the potential to be a Judge Souter, but imo there is more potential to be a Clarence Thomas, in other words a rubber stamp for whatever rabid nonsense Scalia is spewing. That might be even more dangerous than a Justice Rogers-Brown.
I am hoping that the Cons defeat Meier, in part, and Bush nominates a rabid RWinger. Frist doesn’t have the political capital to go nuclear and break a filibuster.
Then maybe Bush will nominate someone with credentials. Seriously, cons, do you really think the Harriet Meier is the best that American can do?
The only we have to fear is conservatives themselves!
Who on earth decided that only liberals get to pick and choose Supreme Court Justices.
You know, as well as I do, that you will never be pleased with anyone but someone who comes down on the PC (and it is interesting that PC is alway defined as the left wing view — but that’s a whole ‘nother thread) side.
You should all be honest enough to say “We want a liberal judge.”
I want a qualified judge, not a crony.
“You should all be honest enough to say We want a liberal judge. ‘
I think liberals and Democrats have been quite open about the kind of judge they think would be a good choice. I think we all know that Dems want a judge who will not oveturn past precedent and believes in a right to privacy. I think we all know that Dems want a judge that won’t overturn RvW. The President’s conservative supporters have been equally vocal in announcing what they want: a judge who will overturn precedent, strip away a whole raft of privacy based rights, including abortion. Only the President and his nominees, so far, refuse to tell us where they stand. Why is that?
It should also be pointed out that LBJ appointed a personal friend and lawyer to the court, Abe Fortas, and was excoriated for it by his conservative opponents. Then, of course, there was FDR’s “court packing” plan which was a blatantly partisan move that threatened the independence of the court and won FDR much deserved criticism. The issue here is, if appointed, will Mier recuse herself from cases in which there may be a conflict of interest? I think that’s a reasonable question that Senators are entitled to have answered. If Mier’s hands them the “I cannot comment on issues that may come before the court” non-answer, well, that raises serious questions about her ability to serve.
I’ll answer for Frankie and all the other RW trolls- IOKIYAR.
You should all be honest enough to say We want a liberal judge.
I want an Arabian horse judge!
Face it Frank, your president is a joke, this appointment is a joke, and your support for him…is a joke.
Yes, if the president picks a judge whose philosophy we disagree with, we will say so.
Just as when a liberal president picks a liberal judge, conservatives will voice their disapproval.
That’s free speech; that’s America. Get used to it Frank.
But you’re dodging the issue:
Given that the judiciary branch is supposed to be a check on the power of the executive branch, are you happy that the president has nominated someone who has spent the last decade or so being an extremely loyal personal and professional advocate for the president. Shouldn’t we all- right and left- agree that this is an abuse of the president’s power?