Waiting for Fitzgerald

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
1. Its cronyism at its worst, but look at the record, Souter, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Condi, Karen Hughes, the Saudis. The Saudis!!!

2. Lame. Duck.

I pray that I am proven wrong, but sadly, I suspect that all of my worst fears from 2000 are coming true. Even if he doesn't raise income taxes in the next 3 years, his failure to work diligently for the estate tax repeal is close enough to a tax increase. Can I rescind my vote in Florida from 2000?

The estate tax issue is silly. I agree it should be abolished. But if you've got enough cash that its an issue to you, you've already had a financial planner and lawyer structure an avoidance plan. Nobody just sits around with a stack of money in the bank and gets caught by the estate tax. I've never heard of it. Don't give me the family farmer/small business owner myth.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It's not Rotten.com. They are pics that have been published in many commercial publications and are all over the web and not graphic (in comparison to the close-up shots of her run-over). This is an example, and a cautionary one for the liberal duncery here, of what happens when you attempt to assist terrorists in their campaign of genocide. You get bulldozed.

Quit being an asshole.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Quit being an asshole.

He can't help it. It's his nature.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
You can't have justice without using violence to create it. If you are against all forms of violence, you are against justice. It is that simple.

So, Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King were against justice? The Quakers are servants of evil?

Interesting theory. I disagree.

I assume this is related to your previously stated position that anyone who is critical of the administration's decision to invade Iraq must logically be a supporter of continuing the reign of Saddam Hussein.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Quit being an asshole.

I was waiting for the photoshopping of Robert Byrd ddriving the bulldozer.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I was waiting for the photoshopping of Robert Byrd ddriving the bulldozer.

I know you know better than that. You've heard Daniel Carver- the jews are the devil. no way Byrd helps drive the dozer.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You may have been right about W after all. This morning for me could be a breaking moment. Harriet Miers is certainly, on her face (npi), the worst Supreme Court nominee since Souter, whose, coincidentally, highest qualification was being a personal friend of a friend of the Bush family (i.e. Sununu), although this one apparently is a personal friend of W. While I always cringed at Bush I's comment that "Thomas was the most qualified person for the seat", this lady makes Thomas look qualified.

This may show that the social conservatives and religious right are -- in the eyes of the mainstream GOP leadership and GWB -- the ugly little sisters at the fraternity house.

You'll sit around and drink beer with them, screw them a time or two when you're loaded, and you sure need them to build your float and help around the House -- but you're not going to put them up for homecoming queen.

OTOH -- who really knows with this woman?

I see the question here as being:

(a) did Bush just want to avoid a big fight and name a justice he was comfortable with; or

(b) Did Bush want to avoid a big fight with a stealth nominee who would transform the Court's jurisprudence.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Gattigap
In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met.

Oh my.

S_A_M

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Quit being an asshole.

I wish you luck in this campaign. If you succeed, your next trick should be to get the sun to rise in the west a few times.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Who the hell is Harriet Miers?

I know she's WH counsel, and that she's a Texas buddy and all. But still. Unless this woman assasinates abortion doctors in her spare time or something, I'm completely baffled by Bush's apparent punt on this one.

ETA: A friend who happens to know a bit about this woman has passed along the following trivia:

"*she's unmarried, a career professional women who's been very successful.

* she was the President of the Dallas law firm Locke Purnell Rain Harrell (a firm that I interviewed with out of law school, but decided not to pursue) when it merged with the Houston law firm Liddell Sapp, becoming the co-Managing Partner of Locke Liddell & Sapp after the merger.

* she was a well-known litigation attorney before she started working for Governor Bush

* she's worked in the Bush White House for the last several years.

* she's said to be very loyal to Bush

* she has no judicial experience. All her career has been either in private practice or in politics.

Should be interesting."

Indeed.

In the first place, Rehnquist himself had no judicial experience when he was appointed. In fact, numerous Justices have been appointed without prior judicial experience. The only real harm in that is that there is no track record on which to politicize the appointee.

The woman was the first partner of a large Texas firm, the first woman to be elected the President of the Dallas bar, the first woman to be voted president of the Texas state bar. She's obviously a highly-accomplished lawyer.

I can guarantee that Bush knows her politics and her judicial leanings. It's just the rest of the country that doesn't and won't unless she's affirmed. Does anybody here really think that Bush would appoint someone who was not in his mold to be his personal counsel, let alone to the SC?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In the first place, Rehnquist himself had no judicial experience when he was appointed. In fact, numerous Justices have been appointed without prior judicial experience. The only real harm in that is that there is no track record on which to politicize the appointee.

Certainly true. I don't remember the Rehnquist nomination, but presume that he was a particularly esteemed member of the bar at the time. Here -- who knows? I don't pretend to be up to date on all of the prominent lawyers, but there are loads of people who've never heard of this woman.

The woman was the first partner of a large Texas firm, the first woman to be elected the President of the Dallas bar, the first woman to be voted president of the Texas state bar. She's obviously a highly-accomplished lawyer.

Perhaps. These are all good accomplishments, to be sure, but I don't really know that this is SCOTUS material.

Harry Reid's earlier comments about wanting someone with actual litigating experience -- someone who's actually taken a deposition, tried a case, etc -- are well taken, but I didn't know he meant it to be to the exclusion of any judicial experience.

I can guarantee that Bush knows her politics and her judicial leanings. It's just the rest of the country that doesn't and won't unless she's affirmed. Does anybody here really think that Bush would appoint someone who was not in his mold to be his personal counsel, let alone to the SC?

I agree with this. In some respects, I'm more concerned about a nominee whose primary attribute has been her loyalty to the president.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Certainly true. I don't remember the Rehnquist nomination, but presume that he was a particularly esteemed member of the bar at the time. Here -- who knows? I don't pretend to be up to date on all of the prominent lawyers, but there are loads of people who've never heard of this woman.

Rehnquist received no small amount of criticism for being essentially a Republican "hack". One of the central points of opposition was that, while working for the Republican party, he had set up methods for systematically challenging black voters.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Harry Reid's earlier comments about wanting someone with actual litigating experience -- someone who's actually taken a deposition, tried a case, etc -- are well taken, but I didn't know he meant it to be to the exclusion of any judicial experience.

I agree with this. In some respects, I'm more concerned about a nominee whose primary attribute has been her loyalty to the president.

I think that Harry Reid may very well have meant precisely that. As I noted earlier, one benefit of not having a judicial track record is that the nominee will be queried on her judgment, ethics, temperament, and intellect instead of what she meant in foot note five of her dissenting concurrence in California Ex. Rel. Beavis v. Butthead.

I am far more comfortable with a trial lawyer who has never put on a robe being a SC justice than I am with an academic who has never seen the inside of a courtroom (hello Scalia, Posner, et. al.).

And I agree with you that it is more disturbing to know that this is a woman who is so closely and intimately tied with the Bush administration and has such a high degree of loyalty to a man whose judgment I so completely distrust.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I am far more comfortable with a trial lawyer who has never put on a robe being a SC justice than I am with an academic who has never seen the inside of a courtroom (hello Scalia, Posner, et. al.).

2, but experience on one side of the bench and experience on the other are not mutually exclusive. And when a president goes to either extreme, I start to worry about his motivations. If it's "she is a brilliant, universally respected lawyer" or "he is a scholar whose views influence judges throughout the nation", that's one thing. If it's "she's a loyal devotee of the President," well, that's another.....

[Captain]

Originally posted by taxwonk

I am far more comfortable with a trial lawyer who has never put on a robe being a SC justice than I am with an academic who has never seen the inside of a courtroom (hello Scalia, Posner, et. al.).

Did either Brandeis or Warren have prior judicial experience? I believe both were heavily involved in politics and could be viewed as appointments driven by political payback or symbolism.