Bingo. Any call for her nomination to be rejected is the functional equivalent a call for the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, or any other of a large number of candidates with better resumes and far, far scarier convictions.
The cites I can find put support for the Death Penalty at under 2/3rds but much higher than half. But if an alternative is given of “Life in prison with NO possibilty of parole” it becomes a coin flip. Anybody have better recent data?
Don’t agree. I know several lawyers like her who are competent but not particularly good. Above all have got where they have because they are consumate political operators.
Sorry.
“Above all they have got where they have because they… etc”
So, who’s a “national figure” then? Ted Kennedy opposes the death penalty. Is he not a “national figure”? Kerry did until recently, and he only favors it for acts of terrorism (an obvious political dodge).
I certainly agree that anyone who advocates abolition of the death penalty would impose that penalty on his presidential candidacy, but that can be said about many things: like removing “under God” from the pledge or advocating SSM.
I just don’t see why that should be “frightening”, to use Bricker’s words. Frightening? I’m interesting in further understanding that point.
It will be interesting to see if any of the Senators who voted “no” on Roberts will vote “yes” on Miers. Not a big deal in the long run, but it’ll just be interesting.
“Like her” means what, exactly?
Call me weird, but even with a Supreme Court majority hanging in the balance, I’d rather see the Dems ditch this worthless, barely-qualified hack, and hope that Bush nominates a prinicipled conservative, even if said conservative is pretty damned conservative.
If they took a stand against hackery but not against straighforward conservatism, they might actually look, y’know, principled. (Gasp!)
Me too. What was that latest case that the Supremes declined to hear - that Virginia case? Something about the DNA evidence getting tossed pretty damned quickly, with no safeguards - just one clerk got to make the call.
The death penalty system in most of this country looks like it was designed and executed (so to speak) by Michael Brown of FEMA. You’d think there’d be at least one politician of national repute who’d be willing to stand against that.
Although it is the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court functions very differently than the inferior courts. I don’t know that one needs experience as a judge to be a justice. I’d be concerned if the person had NO legal experience or none of the justices had been judges, but I don’t think having a couple of non-judges is a bad thing - in fact, it may offer different viewpoints that make for a better court.
Meaning as per her accomplishments and experience described by others in this thread.
Bush has not nominated a hardline, Scalia-type conservative with either of his two picks, and that is what the Democrats have said they wanted over and over. If Democrats contribute to the defeat of Miers, I think Bush would be forced to try someone more conservative, since that will be more likely to get all the Republicans on board. That would be contradicting their stated goals, or what you might call principles. So thus far, it seems to me that voting against her would be a dumb move.
Considering that she came with the blessing of the Senate Minority leader, it would seem an odd thing to do. Perhaps you mean Reid shouldn’t have said what he said.
I’m withholding a verdict on how “qualified” she is until the hearings. There are 9 justices on the court, so having some with varying backgrounds makes a lot of sense. The SCOTUS does more than just render decisions on constitutional issues.
Ditto. I’m not overly impressed with what I’ve heard about her background, but if it’s true that the justices think it’s important to have non-judges on the Court (that was mentioned in one thread, I forget if it was this one), then that would partially negate that.
So I take it you yearn for a return of someone in the mold of Brennan or Marshal?
Aftre the impressive credentials from Roberts, I find Bush’s new pick dissapointing. I can’t wait until the hearings, but if they don’t pull out some impressive past legal works of hers that havn’t been already touted, I hope she gets a no from the senate. I want a conservative judge in there, but I also want one who has at least a bit more knowedge of the Constitution and the US than your average council.
SO far this just sems an obvious attempt by Bush to place cronyism before what’s best for the country. I don’t like it. A SCOTUS slot should be more sacrosanct that just payment to your buddies, and as much as I don’t hate Bush, I am offended.
The outright hostility expressed against her by conservative groups leads me to believe that she is probably a moderate. Operation Rescue (a very radical anti-abortion group) hates Harriet Miers.
I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so it looks like I’ll be supporting her confirmation.
How interesting. From the Austin American-Statesman :
Dan Rather wants a second go at Bush, , but was turned down by CBS.
But if Littwin is subpoenaed, he could well verify that the infamous memo was essentially correct, even if not forensically authentic.
Ah, “fake but accurate” comes back, huh.
Of course, in the news business, fake doesn’t cut it, you know.
But the significant part of the Austin newspaper article is the role of Miers. This could well lead to her withdrawal. The question is will the Dems find the fortitude to subpoena Littwin?
As you should know, for the most part the death penalty is a state issue. A self-avowed federalist should be *happy * that there’s no nationwide debate over banning it federally. There are federal crimes that call for it, but it’s still rarely applied and even then there are rarely questions about the verdicts’, well, accuracy.
Miers may be the stealth anti-Roe nominee we’ve expected:
Pretty thin gruel, sure, but still the only gruel on the table.