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. [/quote]
Choosing your personal attorney and personal friend over more qualified people who are actually judges is not cronysism? Open the other eye, Rainman.
[quote]buffballswell wrote:
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.[/quote]
You have no basis for this. Just because she goes to church doesn’t mean that she’ll throw the constitution out in favor of the Bible.
I think you have just displayed a little thing called bigotry. Nice Job.
I don’t think it is wise for Bush to base his choosing of her off the fact that she is anti-abortion. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will cause a shitstorm… I think there is some other reason, though I can’t figure it out yet. And I don’t think it is nepotism either, I don’t think that is ole’ W’s style, at least not for the Supreme Court. Even he isn’t that stupid. So yet I wonder…why her?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I don’t think it is wise for Bush to base his choosing of her off the fact that she is anti-abortion. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will cause a shitstorm… I think there is some other reason, though I can’t figure it out yet. her?[/quote]
If you were a genuine born again Christian who truly was worried about your immortal soul burning in the depths of hell, and you had a chance to stop millions of babies from being slaughtered every year, would you put political concerns above the chance to do the “right thing”?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
buffballswell wrote:
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.
You have no basis for this. Just because she goes to church doesn’t mean that she’ll throw the constitution out in favor of the Bible.
I think you have just displayed a little thing called bigotry. Nice Job. [/quote]
And now you have as well, along with a little sarcasm. Two for one, congratulations.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I don’t think it is wise for Bush to base his choosing of her off the fact that she is anti-abortion. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will cause a shitstorm… I think there is some other reason, though I can’t figure it out yet. And I don’t think it is nepotism either, I don’t think that is ole’ W’s style, at least not for the Supreme Court. Even he isn’t that stupid. So yet I wonder…why her?[/quote]
Hogwash.
The Roe v. Wade decision already caused a shitstorm. The Supreme Court touched off the culture wars with this decision rather than settling the issue.
Abortion won’t go anywhere necessarily if Roe is overturned - abortion would not be outlawed, the issue would return to the states. If 51% of the people favor a right to an abortion, the state legislatures will reflect that.
Striking Roe down is not declaring that abortion is bad policy - it is saying that there is no constitutional right to it and states are free to deal with this contentious question by way of democratic process.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
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?[/quote]
Obviously not to you! However, there are others (me included) who feel that this one issue is paramount.
[quote]buffballswell wrote:
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.[/quote]
No actually “the love of money is the root of all evil.”
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Choosing your personal attorney and personal friend over more qualified people who are actually judges is not cronysism? Open the other eye, Rainman.
[/quote]
10 of the last 30 Justices had never sat on the bench prior to sitting on the supreme court.
She has to be confirmed - if she is found to be unqualified, she will not make it.
My eyes are open - me thinks it is you that needs to open both of his.
And you can bitch and moan all you want, and cry cronyism from the roof tops - she’s still nominated and has a better than average chance of being confirmed.
Please list the qualifications for being a Supreme Court Justice. You seem so sure that she is not qualified, I would just like some proof as to her lack of qualifications.
Meirs is a great pick for the GOP as she is pro business over anything else.
This is a slight to the evangelicals but the base will fall in line. They always do.
Nothing to see here.
She will get an up or down vote.
Liberals should just vote her in. Many right wingnuts in the GOP are hoping the Democrats filibuster Meirs so they do not have to go out on a limb and vote against her nomination.
I say voter her in. None of the decisions of the SCOTUS will ever have any negative affect on me personally. I could care less.
It will be very interesting how the SCOTUS affects the masses. Ruling for corporate interests personally enriches me. We shall see how it affects you.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
I say voter her in. None of the decisions of the SCOTUS will ever have any negative affect on me personally. I could care less.
It will be very interesting how the SCOTUS affects the masses. Ruling for corporate interests personally enriches me. We shall see how it affects you.
[/quote]
‘B’…sigh… How much less could you care? The expression is that you COULDN’T care less. As for the rest, I’m certainly glad that we will enrich you with our laws. Sigh…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
I say voter her in. None of the decisions of the SCOTUS will ever have any negative affect on me personally. I could care less.
It will be very interesting how the SCOTUS affects the masses. Ruling for corporate interests personally enriches me. We shall see how it affects you.
‘B’…sigh… How much less could you care? The expression is that you COULDN’T care less. As for the rest, I’m certainly glad that we will enrich you with our laws. Sigh…
[/quote]
You are correct!
I couldn’t care less!!
FYI - The SCOTUS is not suppose to make laws and their interpretation of the law for corporate interests benefits me.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I don’t think it is wise for Bush to base his choosing of her off the fact that she is anti-abortion. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will cause a shitstorm… I think there is some other reason, though I can’t figure it out yet. And I don’t think it is nepotism either, I don’t think that is ole’ W’s style, at least not for the Supreme Court. Even he isn’t that stupid. So yet I wonder…why her?[/quote]
Shitstorm? Nah. MOST people don’t have the capacity to do anything but bitch. MOST people are pacifists and won’t do a damn thing. It will be water-cooler chatter and major headlines until something else BIG happens.
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I don’t think it is wise for Bush to base his choosing of her off the fact that she is anti-abortion. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will cause a shitstorm… I think there is some other reason, though I can’t figure it out yet. And I don’t think it is nepotism either, I don’t think that is ole’ W’s style, at least not for the Supreme Court. Even he isn’t that stupid. So yet I wonder…why her?
Shitstorm? Nah. MOST people don’t have the capacity to do anything but bitch. MOST people are pacifists and won’t do a damn thing. It will be water-cooler chatter and major headlines until something else BIG happens.[/quote]
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I don’t think it is wise for Bush to base his choosing of her off the fact that she is anti-abortion. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will cause a shitstorm… I think there is some other reason, though I can’t figure it out yet. And I don’t think it is nepotism either, I don’t think that is ole’ W’s style, at least not for the Supreme Court. Even he isn’t that stupid. So yet I wonder…why her?
Shitstorm? Nah. MOST people don’t have the capacity to do anything but bitch. MOST people are pacifists and won’t do a damn thing. It will be water-cooler chatter and major headlines until something else BIG happens.[/quote]
[quote]rainjack wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Choosing your personal attorney and personal friend over more qualified people who are actually judges is not cronysism? Open the other eye, Rainman.
10 of the last 30 Justices had never sat on the bench prior to sitting on the supreme court.
[/quote]
Those 10 were pretty much all senators or governors, not personal friends of the president.
Those 10 were pretty much all senators or governors, not personal friends of the president.
[/quote]
So you’d trust a politician on the bench over a career lawyer?
She may be friends with Bush but she has to earn the job on her own merit. The judiciary committee should see to that. You can call it cronyism all you want, but if she is confirmed it will be because of her qualifications, not her friends.
There are always more qualified people that get overlooked for this job. I’m guessing ‘qualified’ is a pretty subjective term, no?
