Miers withdrew - Page 3

strandinthewind · #31 10-27-2005, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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

(obvious humor)

gldstwmn · #32 10-27-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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

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

Brwn_eyes0511 · #33 10-27-2005, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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 · #34 10-27-2005, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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 · #35 10-27-2005, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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 · #36 10-27-2005, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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 · #37 10-27-2005, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #38 10-27-2005, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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

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 · #39 10-27-2005, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

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

gldstwmn · #40 10-27-2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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?

strandinthewind · #41 10-27-2005, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Crisco?

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

ShangriLaTroubl · #42 10-27-2005, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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 · #43 10-27-2005, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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 · #44 10-27-2005, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

No kidding.

dissention · #45 10-27-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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."