I really want to bitch moan and complain about her, being as Bush picked her. But I have never heard of her before. Maybe Bush realized if he put a superchristian or right winger on there, he would split the country even more? Who knows. I know she isn’t a liberal…but I hope she is middle of the road. This might be one thing our glorious leader has done that I can’t hate.
Cronyism.
Well, W says he “knows her heart,” and by golly, that’s good enough for me.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001221205
Here’s an interesting bit o’ trivia concerning our latest nominee to the SCOTUS:
She was the one who personally briefed Bush in August 2001 about Osama bin Laden and his determination to attack the US somehow.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Well, W says he “knows her heart,” and by golly, that’s good enough for me.[/quote]
Didn’t he say that about Vladimir Putin too?
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Cronyism.[/quote]
Sure looks that way.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Cronyism.
Sure looks that way.[/quote]
I gotta throw the bullshit flag on everyone crying cronyism. If she is qualified for the job, and gets coinfirmed based on those qualifications, how is it cronyism?
A judgeship on the USSC is not a cabinet appointment that answers to the President, nor is it a position in which the President influence politically.
In my opinion, he is taking a huge risk by nominating her - she has some left leaning tendancies, and there is no guarantee that she won;t flip on him like few of the republican appointees on the bench right now have done.
My only concern about her nomination is the fact that shit-head Reid has said he likes her. That should raise a hyoooge red flag for those on the right.
But whatever you want to call this nomination - cronyism does not apply.
RJ, While she appears qualified there are also many more people that appear more qualified with more impressive resumes.
She has been very close and loyal to GWB for years.
Maybe the term cronyism is a little too harsh as it implies that she is unqualified, but she certainly fits the bill of getting special treatment for being a longstanding supporter.
I think I know why he selected her. This is one strong vote against Roe V Wade! Along with Roberts that might be enough to overturn it.
You guys have to look into the mind of GW (Please no jokes liberals). He is focused on single issues. He knows he can’t get his entire wish list with anyone. Primarily because no President really knows for sure how any Judge will lean once appointed. Bush knows this woman and knows she is anti-abortion.
I think it was a very clever move.
Isn’t the choice as simple as picking someone the dems can’t Bork (or will have a harder time doing so?).
I would have rather had someone…on the predicted list too…but when the republicans approve Ginsburg of the ACLU and then the dems…do the usual…isn’t this one expedient (if not pleasing to all on the right) way to deal with them?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You guys have to look into the mind of GW (Please no jokes liberals).
[/quote]
But Clinton had sex in office.
“Miers is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice on ‘The West Wing’, let alone on the real Supreme Court.”
---- Ann Coulter
Looks like George dropped the ball on this one: www.anncoulter.com
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think I know why he selected her. This is one strong vote against Roe V Wade! Along with Roberts that might be enough to overturn it.
You guys have to look into the mind of GW (Please no jokes liberals). He is focused on single issues. He knows he can’t get his entire wish list with anyone. Primarily because no President really knows for sure how any Judge will lean once appointed. Bush knows this woman and knows she is anti-abortion.
I think it was a very clever move.[/quote]
Is this issue that important to you that you would consider this move ‘clever’ given any other point of view on any other subject.
It just amazes me that this issue would be of such a concern to anyone else accept the person it involves.
I’m much more concerned about the ridiculous 3 strikes and you’re out law and how that is negatively affecting both the prison populations and the people it is hurting unnecessarily.
I’m much more concerned about public safety than the private decision between a patient and their Dr. about what they want to do with their body.
I’m more concerned with the fact we’ve allowed our gas/oil driven society to be oligopolied(?) by so few when I though anti-trust laws were inplace to prevent just this case.
If true Republicans want a conservative in that position to strictly interpret the constitution and not to fly off and make new law, then where in the constitution is abortion even an issue?
Anyways, I know nothing more about her than what I read. Does anyone else know anyhting else?
[quote]slimjim wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You guys have to look into the mind of GW (Please no jokes liberals).
But Clinton had sex in office.[/quote]
Yes, that was a scummy thing to do in the Oval Office. But that has nothing to do with the topic 
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Is this issue that important to you that you would consider this move ‘clever’ given any other point of view on any other subject.[/quote]
I think “if” the issue is important to Bush he made a very clever move. And yes it’s also important to me.
It amazes me that it is not more important to others. Allowing a baby to get it’s head ripped off in the name of choice is pretty disgusting thing. No?
I agree, that’s an important issue as well. But at least those going to prison (while perhaps not deserving as much time as they get)did in fact do something wrong. An innocent baby did nothing do deserve being aborted in a most vicious manner.
I would agree if it was simply about “their body.” However, it’s not is it?
[quote]
If true Republicans want a conservative in that position to strictly interpret the constitution and not to fly off and make new law, then where in the constitution is abortion even an issue?
Anyways, I know nothing more about her than what I read. Does anyone else know anyhting else?[/quote]
Abortion was made a new law in 1973 by a far more liberal court than the Roberts court will soon be 
If all she does is strike down Roe V Wade I’m happy with her. 32 years of killing innocent babies is enough for me…
Getting into an abortion debate is not going to work. Too heated, no workable middle ground. I respect your opinion, my belief is different.
My argument is such, if the Pres. is so single issue focused when appointing a judge, is that a good thing? Should this be the main focus of our court system or President? When they strip away your right to privacy inone area, what stops them from going further?
R v W was never an abortion issue per se, or a right to life issue as I’m sure you are aware.
The justices didn’t just legalize murder as some would like to infer to take the debate away from where it should be.
Is the potential vote on one issue worth conceding all others?
This nomination is very interesting. Clarence Thomas is still my all-time favorite. How do you deny a black man his spot on the Supreme Court? Despite the fact that “black leaders” despise him and he is so right leaning he borders on facism.
Brilliant.
What I also think is very interesting is the vote count for the Roberts nomination, he had around twice as many Nay votes as the last three Justices combined. Interesting how bipartisan appointments work when Democrats are on the other side.
She seems like too much like religion wacko. Someone who would base her decisions and judicial opinions on her faith rather than the constitution. Bad fucking choice. Religion is the root of all evil, ironically.
And Im dyslexic
[quote]Mattthepug wrote:
[What I do know for sure is that there were a great many originalists and strict constructionists the President could have chosen . . . .]
Which originalist strict constructionist ideas are you in favor of? bringing back slavery? disenfranchising women? forcing the aboriginal people off of their land? or another good old originally contitutional practice?
[/quote]
Try not to be obtuse. Originalism and strict constructionism are theories for interpretation of what we have – if something has been removed, there would be nothing to interpret.
The whole idea of why a Constitution is stronger than a normal law is that a Constitution passed a supermajority approval test – what good is subjecting a law to a supermajority approval test if an unelected bureaucrat can magically grow its meaning to fit his desires of the moment – which is essentially what you allow if you allow a “living” Constitution to have its meaning changed by judicial fiat.