Next Justice
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:37 am
Who?
But seriously, I read what little I could find and I find myself wondering if she didn’t volunteer as sort of a way to see if the Dem’s would shoot themselves with a filibuster. I can see the conversation going like this:
GW: “Alright, we know whoever is nominated that the press and the dems are going to drag though the mud, ruin their lives, call names and treat like crap. The prize is to be a SC judge. Who do we know that is willing to go through that and won’t be an embarrassment?”
HM: “I’ll do it.”
GW: “Really?”
HM: “Yes.”
GW: “OK. Next item.”
Personally, I cannot understand why someone would want their life and opinions dug into and torn up like that. No thanks.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Wonderful. Tons of qualifed actual conservatives out there….and Bush picks a woman lawyer off his legal team who gave money to the democrats.
He’s really sending Conservatives a lesson. I think its: FU.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:02 pm
It always bothered me that to be a supreme, or even to advance as a judge you have to distinguish yourself as a in your court work while simultaneously play you cards close to your chest. Anyone remember that judge that declared that the pledge was unconstitutional, (not this past September, but back in 2002) but then went back the next day, after backlash, and decided not to have his ruling immediately apply? A career ass saving maneuver was that.
She’s a woman, she’s republican, she does not have a public record on issues. All the Dems said that they were approving Roberts, but if the next guy was more radical right, all bets were off. Very slick move today by Bush.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:43 pm
Let’s see–she supports federal gun prosecutions, she was a Democrat through the 80s, she donated to the Gore campaign and the democrat leadership has been reported supportive of her nomination.
Sounds like just the person I want ruling on “shall not be infringed.”
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:27 pm
I think this bit about giving to Democrats is being blown way out of proportion. Back in the 1980s, the Texas Republican Party consisted of the Bush family, and just about no one else. The 1988 version of Al Gore was quite different from the 2000 or even 1992 editions, and besides, big firms contribute to major candidates all the time. Remember, we’re talking about the Al Gore who gave us Willie Horton, not the one who gave us Earth in the Balance, created the Internets and tried to sue his way into the White House.
Sarcasm aside, you’re right – if someone has to rule on that question, Miers is precisely the person you should want to do so, assuming you can trust her to hold the same views today that she committed herself in writing to in 1992.
October 5th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Xrlq:
I agree. In Wisconsin last year, there was controversy concerning several of the Republican primary candidates vying for Russ Feingold’s senate seat, because most of them had donated to Democratic campaigns. Except that the reason they did this was to help unelectable Democrats win, not to actually get them elected. That is, Democrat A will be tough to beat in the general election, while Democrat B would be easily dispatched, so let’s make sure Democrat B wins the primary.
This doesn’t seem to be what Miers did, but it illustrates the point: to whom someone donates doesn’t necessarily tell you what their political views are, and there can be ulterior motives for such donations. (And I’m sure the Democrats do it to Republicans, too…)