Miers withdrew

[SuzeQuze]

Now who will he choose next?

[dissention]

Priscilla Owen. :shocked:

[sara1998]

haaaaaaahaaa!!! oops!

[irishgrl]

this just in? any articles to go with it? holy moly I almost spit out my coffee :eek:

[dissention]

this just in? any articles to go with it? holy moly I almost spit out my coffee :eek:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/miers_withdraws;_ylt=AhKTKZxmIyZPYDKzjYFFgDluCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[markolas]

Priscilla Owen. :shocked:

Oh, yeah, you can bet your sweet ass he'll nominate a *certifiable* wingnut this time. :distress:

[Jyqm]

My question: Will the likes of Brandon and Ann Coulter continue to criticize Bush and call for his head on a platter or, now that they don't have something immediately to lose, will they go back to stroking his hair and toeing the party line?

[markolas]

My question: Will the likes of Brandon and Ann Coulter continue to criticize Bush and call for his head on a platter or, now that they don't have something immediately to lose, will they go back to stroking his hair and toeing the party line?

Oh, I'm sure Brandon is having make-up sex with his George Bush blow-up doll as we speak. :laugh:



Was that mean?

[irishgrl]

My question: Will the likes of Brandon and Ann Coulter continue to criticize Bush and call for his head on a platter or, now that they don't have something immediately to lose, will they go back to stroking his hair and toeing the party line?
they'll breathe a collective sigh of relief, and pray he picks a real wacko.....
What a bunch of hypocrites. All of them. ALL of them. :mad:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

:] :] :]


janice rogers brown


PLEASE!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Oh, I'm sure Brandon is having make-up sex with his George Bush blow-up doll as we speak. :laugh:



Was that mean?

Yes it was you little whore! :xoxo: :lol:

And Bushy is still the idiot who nominated her...so...

[dissention]

My question: Will the likes of Brandon and Ann Coulter continue to criticize Bush and call for his head on a platter or, now that they don't have something immediately to lose, will they go back to stroking his hair and toeing the party line?

I think the latter will apply.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

George Bush today...

I nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because of her extraordinary legal experience...

:lol:

The man hates conservatives...he MUST!

[dissention]

janice rogers brown


She'd never be confirmed. Even moderate Republicans wouldn't vote to confirm her.

[GypsySorcerer]

:shocked: :shocked:
Does anyone think the next nominee will be Gonzales?

[GypsySorcerer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/miers_withdraws;_ylt=AhKTKZxmIyZPYDKzjYFFgDluCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

"In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers." --Lott. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

She'd never be confirmed. Even moderate Republicans wouldn't vote to confirm her.

I disagree. I think she is a perfect choice...

Very conservative (almost libertarian) views and Lord knows at least she is qualified.

And I really wanted a black or minority because I think the Roberts hearings demonstrated that the Democrats have drawn a line in the sand saying...Ok. We will take a conservative, but it has got to be a white man...no more of this minority stuff because we are busy trying to convince blacks and hispanics the republicans HATE them. And then everytime they turn around they see another prominent a black official and this person was put there by a Republican. I mean you've got Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice...it's getting hard for Democrats to explain to blacks and hispanics that Republicans HATE them. So I don't think Democrats would want that nomination...and as a general rule I think you should always do what Democrats do not want you to do.

[dissention]

:shocked: :shocked:
Does anyone think the next nominee will be Gonzales?

Nope. Can't say that I do. He'd be eviscerated over those torture memos alone.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

:shocked: :shocked:
Does anyone think the next nominee will be Gonzales?

Conservatives already showed distaste in that! I think that is why Bush was ticked off at us. We didn't want Gonzales...so he nominated ANOTHER crony EVEN LESS qualified!

[GypsySorcerer]

I mean you've got Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice...it's getting hard for Democrats to explain to blacks and hispanics that Republicans HATE them.
:eek: :eek:

[dissention]

I disagree. I think she is a perfect choice...

Of course you think she's a perfect choice, but she'd never be confirmed. It took more than two years for her to be confirmed for her current job and she's been cited by the Judicial Commission in California as letting her political opinions and views affect her decisions, among other damaging things.

Lord knows at least she is qualified.

Not according to the Judicial Commission of California and the American Bar Association. :laugh:

And I really wanted a black or minority because I think the Roberts hearings demonstrated that the Democrats have drawn a line in the sand saying...Ok. We will take a conservative, but it has got to be a white man...no more of this minority stuff because we are busy trying to convince blacks and hispanics the republicans HATE them. And then everytime they turn around they see another prominent a black official and this person was put there by a Republican. I mean you've got Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice...it's getting hard for Democrats to explain to blacks and hispanics that Republicans HATE them. So I don't think Democrats would want that nomination...and as a general rule I think you should always do what Democrats do not want you to do.

:laugh: Get some new material.

[dissention]

Conservatives already showed distaste in that! I think that is why Bush was ticked off at us. We didn't want Gonzales...so he nominated ANOTHER crony EVEN LESS qualified!

Are you implying that Gonzales isn't qualified? If so, :laugh: . I loathe the man, but let's be realistic.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Of course you think she's a perfect choice, but she'd never be confirmed. It took more than two years for her to be confirmed for her current job and she's been cited by the Judicial Commission in California as letting her political opinions and views affect her decisions, among other damaging things.



Not according to the Judicial Commission of California and the American Bar Association. :laugh:



I think she would be perfect. She went to UCLA law school she has an incredible life story, she is a sitting judge now, she has a track record. She is perfect, and most importantly it would drive Democrats crazy.

I think the Republicans would vote for her, even the soft Republicans...and don't tell me the Democrats are going to vote down a black Supreme Court nominee who is clearly qualified...are they just going to go back to calling blacks stupid? Even if we lost, which I don't think we would, we would still win long term political gains and Bush would just nominate someone else

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Are you implying that Gonzales isn't qualified? If so, :laugh: . I loathe the man, but let's be realistic.

Come on now...

[dissention]

I think she would be perfect. She went to UCLA law school she has an incredible life story, she is a sitting judge now, she has a track record. She is perfect, and most importantly it would drive Democrats crazy.

Again, she'd never be confirmed. Not with her record.

I think the Republicans would vote for her, even the soft Republicans...and don't tell me the Democrats are going to vote down a black Supreme Court nominee who is clearly qualified...are they just going to go back to calling blacks stupid? Even if we lost, which I don't think we would, we would still win long term political gains and Bush would just nominate someone else

That's what I'm telling you. It'll be a bloodbath if she's nominated. Not a single Democrat would vote for her and the moderates like Olympia Snowe wouldn't vote for her, either.

[dissention]

Come on now...

Answer my question. Are you implying that Gonzales isn't qualified? If so, :laugh: .

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Answer my question. Are you implying that Gonzales isn't qualified? If so, :laugh: .

No I'm not thinking that he is! But he was more qualified than Miers!

[dissention]

No I'm not thinking that he is!

Then you're pretty dim and must not know much about him.

[stargazer99]

Priscilla Owen. :shocked:

Yep, this is my fear! As much as I believe Miers wasn't qualified and did the right thing stepping down, I'm dreading the announcement of a replacement nominee. I think it will be someone very scary, and Priscilla Owen is at the top of that list.

[gldstwmn]

:shocked: :shocked:
Does anyone think the next nominee will be Gonzales?

Maybe him or John Ashcroft. Who knows with these people? It seems to be whomever is in the immediate vicinity of the oval office at the time.

[strandinthewind]

I disagree. I think she is a perfect choice...

Very conservative (almost libertarian) views and Lord knows at least she is qualified.

And I really wanted a black or minority because I think the Roberts hearings demonstrated that the Democrats have drawn a line in the sand saying...Ok. We will take a conservative, but it has got to be a white man...no more of this minority stuff because we are busy trying to convince blacks and hispanics the republicans HATE them. And then everytime they turn around they see another prominent a black official and this person was put there by a Republican. I mean you've got Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice...it's getting hard for Democrats to explain to blacks and hispanics that Republicans HATE them. So I don't think Democrats would want that nomination...and as a general rule I think you should always do what Democrats do not want you to do.

Once again, you are not living in reality. Get off the crack :laugh: (obvious humor)

[gldstwmn]

She is perfect, and most importantly it would drive Democrats crazy.



That's your most important qualification in a Supreme Court Justice?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Then you're pretty dim and must not know much about him.
Just to clarify what I meant. I DON'T think that he is qualified.

[strandinthewind]

She'd never be confirmed. Even moderate Republicans wouldn't vote to confirm her.

Well, it took a resolution to get her in the CA in the first place - so likely they will not, to wit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown

California Supreme Court Associate Justice

In May of 1996, Governor Pete Wilson appointed Brown as Associate Justice to the California Supreme Court. At that time, she was rated "not qualified" by the State Bar of California's Commission on Judicial Nominees, which evaluates nominees to the California courts, the first appointee to receive such a rating. The basis of that negative rating, according to the Bar, was her lack of judicial experience. Brown had then been sitting as a Justice on the Third District Court of Appeal of California (an intermediate appellate court below the California Supreme Court) for less than two years. Brown was praised in the JNE Commission evaluation for her intelligence and accomplishments, however.

While on the California Supreme Court, she wrote the majority opinion upholding an amendment to the California Constitution prohibiting affirmative action for women and minorities and dissented from an opinion striking down a parental consent law for abortions.

There were times, however, during her tenure on the California Supreme Court that Brown demonstrated purportedly liberal positions on criminal sentencing, freedom of speech and gun control. She was the lone justice to contend that a provision in the California Constitution requires drug offenders be given treatment instead of jail time. In 2000, she authored the opinion in Kasler v. Lockyer, upholding the right of the State of California to ban assault weapons, and of the Attorney General of California to add to the list of prohibited weapons. Her opinion in that case clearly explained that the decision was not an endorsement of the policy, but rather recognition of the power of the state.

Her reputation for libertarian political beliefs can be attributed to a speech she delivered to the Federalist Society chapter at University of Chicago Law School in 2000.

United States Court of Appeals Judge

She was nominated by President Bush on July 25, 2003 to be a United States Court of Appeals judge. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on her nomination on October 22 of that same year. After her name had passed out of committee and had been sent to the full Senate, there was a failed cloture vote on November 14, 2003. Bush renominated her on February 1, 2005.

On April 21, the Senate Judiciary Committee again endorsed Brown and referred her name to the full Senate once more. On May 23, Senator John McCain announced an agreement between several moderate Republican and Democrat U.S. Senators, the Gang of 14, to ensure an up-or-down vote on Brown.

On June 8, Brown was confirmed as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by a 56-43 Senate vote. She received her commission on June 10. Although no official announcement of her swearing-in ceremony was made, she began hearing federal cases on September 8, 2005.

During the summer of 2005, she was considered a leading candidate to replace Sandra Day O'Connor as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, but John Roberts was chosen instead. Later, after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and a change in Roberts' nomination to replace Rehnquist, O'Connor's position again became available. However, White House counsel Harriet Miers was nominated on October 3.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

That's your most important qualification in a Supreme Court Justice?

Well no. I should have worded that better! Sorry.

However, driving Dems. crazy IS a factor.

[strandinthewind]

Maybe him or John Ashcroft. Who knows with these people? It seems to be whomever is in the immediate vicinity of the oval office at the time.

Ashcroft was on the very short list for awhile, but something took him off of it and I would LOVE to know what that was.

[dissention]

Just to clarify what I meant. I DON'T think that he is qualified.

And just to reiterate what I said: Then you're pretty dim and must not know much about him. :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

And just to reiterate what I said: Then you're pretty dim and must not know much about him. :laugh:

Ok. I just wanted to make sure that I was clear from the first post. As I read it again it sounded as if I were saying HE WAS qualified.

[dissention]

It seems to be whomever is in the immediate vicinity of the oval office at the time.

:lol:

Too bad I can't give you karma for that one, sweetheart.

[gldstwmn]

Ashcroft was on the very short list for awhile, but something took him off of it and I would LOVE to know what that was.

Crisco? :o

[strandinthewind]

Crisco? :o

Well, the Gannon fiasco has yet to be explained and CLEARLY someone got him that job on a quid pro quo basis :shrug:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I disagree. I think she is a perfect choice...

Very conservative (almost libertarian) views and Lord knows at least she is qualified.

And I really wanted a black or minority because I think the Roberts hearings demonstrated that the Democrats have drawn a line in the sand saying...Ok. We will take a conservative, but it has got to be a white man...no more of this minority stuff because we are busy trying to convince blacks and hispanics the republicans HATE them. And then everytime they turn around they see another prominent a black official and this person was put there by a Republican. I mean you've got Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice...it's getting hard for Democrats to explain to blacks and hispanics that Republicans HATE them. So I don't think Democrats would want that nomination...and as a general rule I think you should always do what Democrats do not want you to do.

I really don't know what the Roberts nomination has to do with black people, lol..that's A NEW ONE! Also I challenge you to give me some democratic politician quotes where they have claimed Republicans HATE blacks? Make policy decisions that are unfavorable to blacks? Sure. Try to nominate a black person here and there to make it SEEM as if they are for the black people? Yeah they do that too. Hate blacks? I doubt they hate them...just don't like them!

[ShangriLaTroubl]

That's your most important qualification in a Supreme Court Justice?

Wow that shines some light on a lot of things..And all this time they claimed they didn't want Harriet Miers because of her lack of experience, for the PUBLIC GOOD...Wow now I know all this time it was because she didn't drive democrats as crazy as they had wanted!

Chris

[gldstwmn]

Well, the Gannon fiasco has yet to be explained and CLEARLY someone got him that job on a quid pro quo basis :shrug:

No kidding. :nod:

[dissention]

Well, the Gannon fiasco has yet to be explained and CLEARLY someone got him that job on a quid pro quo basis :shrug:

My favorite moment during Gannongate? When he was on Anderson Cooper.

Cooper: "Why did you change your name?"

Gannon: "Because it's hard to pronounce."

Cooper: "James is hard to pronounce?"

Gannon: "No, Guckert is."

Cooper: "But you changed your name from James to Jeff. James isn't hard to pronounce."

:lol:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

:lol:

Too bad I can't give you karma for that one, sweetheart.

I so said that two weeks ago! DAMN!

[DavidMn]

What about our good buddy Janice Brown?:lol:

[DavidMn]

Oh, I'm sure Brandon is having make-up sex with his George Bush blow-up doll as we speak. :laugh:



Was that mean?It's a good thing that I didnt have a drink in my hand when I read this because I dont know if I've ever laughed so hard!!!:lol: :lol:

[markolas]

Yes it was you little whore! :xoxo: :lol:

And Bushy is still the idiot who nominated her...so...

You're the one professing undying lust for half the male Ledgies here. :laugh: :p

Although, it would do you some good if one of them had his way with you, methinks. ;) :lol: :woohoo:

[DavidMn]

You're the one professing undying lust for half the male Ledgies here. :laugh: :p

Although, it would do you some good if one of them had his way with you, methinks. ;) :lol: :woohoo:What are you suggesting? Perhaps a date with "Bubba?":lol:

[SuzeQuze]

Maybe him or John Ashcroft. Who knows with these people? It seems to be whomever is in the immediate vicinity of the oval office at the time.

Road trip? :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

Well, the Gannon fiasco has yet to be explained and CLEARLY someone got him that job on a quid pro quo basis :shrug:

I throw you softball questions, you throw me down and have your way with me? That sort of thing? :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

You're the one professing undying lust for half the male Ledgies here. :laugh: :p

Although, it would do you some good if one of them had his way with you, methinks. ;) :lol: :woohoo:

I agree with you! :lol:

But I'd still think that we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity!

[strandinthewind]

I throw you softball questions, you throw me down and have your way with me? That sort of thing? :laugh:

and I have no problem with prostitutes, stripper, hookers . . . errr . . . I mean :laugh:

[dissention]

But I'd still think that we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity!

You make Scientologists appear sane. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

You make Scientologists appear sane. :laugh:

esp. considering those who he venerates and associates would hardly call him a Christian :shrug:

[dissention]

esp. considering those who he venerates and associates would hardly call him a Christian :shrug:

People who say and agree with things like "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" are not Christians and they give true Christians a bad rap. If you want to see a real Christian, look no further than our very own Christy. If there were more like her, this country would be much better off.

[Jyqm]

Interesting op-ed article in the New York Times about how conservatives actually shot themselves in the foot in pressuring Miers to withdraw, by exposing yet another level of their own hypocrisy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/opinion/28hewitt.html

[irishgrl]

Interesting op-ed article in the New York Times about how conservatives actually shot themselves in the foot in pressuring Miers to withdraw, by exposing yet another level of their own hypocrisy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/opinion/28hewitt.html
yes....in between lambasting liberals every chance he got...the distinguished Law Professor couldnt help but expose HIS moral position by his comments on abortion and parental notification. I didnt care for this article overall. Im GLAD the Right exposed themselves but I fear there wont be any real consequences against them, they will continue to blame the Dems for everything even if its their fault (a la that article)