Skip to main content

View Diary: Picking their judge (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  She's An "Originalist" (4.00)
    According to her close friend, Texas Supreme Court Norman Hecht, who is also a member of her conservative, evangelical church.  She's an originalist about both the Bible and the Constitution, says Hecht.

    I think the chances that she is another Souter are next to zero.  I think Scalia just got his third vote.

    "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

    by litigatormom on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:06:07 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Now that's evidence (none)
      However, we shall see. Predicting human behavior is not a simple endeavor, although Bush undoubtedly picked her because he thinks she will dance to his tune.

      The battles on blogs are so bitter because the stakes are so small.

      by Blue the Wild Dog on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:10:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You must have a high opinion of Chief Justice (none)
      Roberts.

      I count four votes for Scalia (including Scalia's own, of course).

      Then there's Justice Kennedy, a right-leaning moderate.

      It's over.  Once Ms. Miers is confirmed, I'm moving to Canada.

      The United States of America just became the United States of Jesus.

      War is hell. Execute Order 66.

      by raymundo on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:36:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thomas Always Follows Scalia (none)
         and to the extent that he writes, he employs Scalia-like, "originalist" reasoning.  Others may join him, or not, depending on the case.  I don't think Roberts will be in Scalia's pocket, just as Kennedy is not.  But I'm pretty sure Harriet will be.  

        "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

        by litigatormom on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:02:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Disagree... (none)
          ...to the extent that what Thomas employs can be called, in any meaningful sense of the term, "reasoning."  His opinions are shit.

          As much as I disagree with Scalia, his opinions are almost always well written and well reasoned.

          Scalia is a conservative legal scholar.  Thomas is a right wing hack.

          The Chimperor Has No Clothes

          by DC Pol Sci on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:14:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't mean to suggest that Thomas (none)
            had anything like Scalia's intellectual candlepower.  He just attempts to do what he thinks Scalia would do.  And he always gets the bottom line -- how would Scalia vote -- dead right.

            "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

            by litigatormom on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:13:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Guess what. (4.00)
        We lost last November 2.  Why is this literate aware crowd so unprepared for the consequences of losing?

        George W. Bush: The Disaster President

        by DCDemocrat on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:33:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  In Any Case (none)
      The key is to get the evidence. We were stonewalled with Roberts. They didn't provide all the paperwork on him.

      Senators should make it clear: no Yes vote unless all the paperwork is in on Miers. Those who are uncomfortable with voting No can vote Present. As far as I know, they aren't required to say yes or no, and voting to abstain is a way of protesting the lack of paper trail.

      Liberal Thinking

      Think, liberally.

      by Liberal Thinking on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:43:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What paperwork? (none)
        She's not a jurist. She's written no opinions. She's just a lawyer and her work product is protected by client confidentiality. If she's published any articles in law journals, they would be fair game, but she doesn't have a public paper trail.

        "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"

        by Kestrel on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:52:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Paperwork (none)
          I was given to understand that she spent a lot of time in the White House on their legal team. She ought to have a lot of paperwork. She ought to know something about all the issues of the day: the Plame affair, the run up to the war in Iraq, Guantanamo, legal opinions on keeping prisoners without access to legal counsel, whatever. At least she ought to have an opinion on them.

          Just because she wasn't a judge doesn't mean she has no history!

          Liberal Thinking

          Think, liberally.

          by Liberal Thinking on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:06:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Confidentiality.... (none)
            That's the line we're going to hear.  I think they need to ask her about ALL of those issues.  She must have advised the Administration on each of those matters, but I'll bet she "can't answer" due to confidentiality or privelege or whatever the actual term is....  

            I think it's a brilliant strategy on the Administrations part.  Nominate someone that no one knows about and can't talk about her work because of confidentiality.  Although, since the White House is the People's House I think we could just agree to let her talk.... smirk!  I think they want the Dems to protest her so they can go nuclear then they can put in someone they really like.

            Who will spin the spinners?

            by stas61690 on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 05:45:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Clearly (none)
          Maybe I didn't make that quite clear. With Roberts, Democrats asked for information, some of which was never released, about his work. Democrats ought to ask for similar information about the work that Miers has done for the White House. This information is pertinent to making a decision. Unless the White House releases this information about her there may be no basis for voting for or against her.

          The more senators who don't vote in favor of a nominee, the less moral backing they have if they are confirmed. Even if Miers is confirmed, the degree of Yes votes is going to be scrutinized. Senators who aren't comfortable voting No can still register a protest by abstaining. This is a way to put pressure on the White House to release more information.

          If a fillibuster isn't appropriate, that should not mean that Democrats simply give up. There are other ways to respond.

          Liberal Thinking

          Think, liberally.

          by Liberal Thinking on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:12:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Nathan Hecht (none)
      Not "Norman".  Just sayin'  ;-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site