| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Eclectic
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 4391
Location: The Midwest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bennieboi wrote: Miers would've been "at best a mistake, at worst a disaster" as The Weekly Standard puts it. She never had a case before the Supreme Court. Wall Street Journal (Oct. 19) "no sense that she has thought about" constitutional issues. She couldn't even fill out her questionaire. It was the first time a questionaire had to be sent back because she decided not to answer some questions. Second, the Senate wouldn't have confirmed her because they didnt know enough about her beliefs. The Nation (Oct. 24) again states "The Senate is asked, then, to confirm a nominee with no visible judicial philosophy who lacks the basic skills of persuasive argument and clear writing." Third, she wouldnt have been confirmed because her confirmation would split the fragile conservative coalition on social issues.
In a few ways, I prefer someone who has a history that does not necessarily mention a lot of "activist" views on philosophical matters, but I agree she wasn't qualified.
bennieboi wrote: The only reason for her confirmation is that Bush may not be able to find anyone better, but that in itself is not a good enough reason.
It is a good enough reason; it's the main reason. No logical thinking person expects Bush to actually realize, admit, and improve upon a mistake. People just take what he gives because what he offers next is going to be something to cater to the interests of some radical group.
What's that new guys name... "Scalito?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
Eclectic
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 4391
Location: The Midwest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bennieboi wrote: Miers would've been "at best a mistake, at worst a disaster" as The Weekly Standard puts it. She never had a case before the Supreme Court. Wall Street Journal (Oct. 19) "no sense that she has thought about" constitutional issues. She couldn't even fill out her questionaire. It was the first time a questionaire had to be sent back because she decided not to answer some questions. Second, the Senate wouldn't have confirmed her because they didnt know enough about her beliefs. The Nation (Oct. 24) again states "The Senate is asked, then, to confirm a nominee with no visible judicial philosophy who lacks the basic skills of persuasive argument and clear writing." Third, she wouldnt have been confirmed because her confirmation would split the fragile conservative coalition on social issues. The only reason for her confirmation is that Bush may not be able to find anyone better, but that in itself is not a good enough reason.
She still would have been better than Alito.
:lol:> :-D> :)> :-|> :(> :cry:> :shock: |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
|
