Harriet Miers
Bush has appointed his long-time personal lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
Scanning the Daou Report, my initial assessment is that just because the right wingers don't like her doesn't make her a good choice!
posted by Luke Francl @ 11:06 AM |
| 
7 Comments:
It seems to me that nearly every right wing blogger and pundit is behaving like those 22 reprehensible Democrats who voted against John Roberts right now. What a shame that they've taken to behaving like "Nancy and the boys." They should all shut up and unquestionably support Bush's nominee.
Again Tom,
Its not what Kos and Co. thought of Roberts, nor the hearing. It was the vote to deprive the president of his choice that was objectionable, not the discussion or criticism (much of it valid.)
In this case, if the Senators vote no, then there should (and I hope will) be a political cost. Especially for the GOP.
But why dance around the issue. The real questions are those of socially activist judges that are legislating from the bench. Do they belong?
-Censored.
Never mind that judges are supposed to balance the power of Congress, including striking down unconstitutional laws. What conservatives call "activism" is in actuality "their job."
They are supposed to balance power by striking down unconstituional laws.
Completely agree.
But so often they don't stop there. They then impose a tortured, convoluted version in place of the law (warping by presidence) or worse, imposing a remedy in its place.
Ex. The last SCOTUS affirmative action case that "sunsetted" it 20 years hence.
How can something be OK now and unconstituional in 20? That's legislating from the bench and an abuse of power.
(Yes I know who did it - I chose that example so we don't go into the issue of affirmative action, but rather focus on activism.)
The best way to resolve social issues is with legislation, not litigation. There is an obvious and clear process to effect change in law and its subverted when the legislature is excluded.
-Censored
The GOP is actively trying to reshape the judiciary into a more conservative body. That's fine, that's how the system works, but it makes it impossible for you to take the high road in this argument.
When is it alright to oppose a nominee and when is it not? You suggest that the President should have carte blanche when it comes to nominating judges, but you also argue that some judges don't belong on the bench. Should an "activist" be approved to SCOTUS, or any other federal bench, if the President nominates them?
Personally, I think that judicial activism is basis for removal of a judge.
In my perfect world the judge can say the law is good or no good - that's all.
I appreciate your point, to paraphrase - either certain judges are bad and should not be confirmed OR the president should have his choices. However, I think its a false dilemma. I think that the president can have his choices, and bad judges can still be excluded. The difference is that they are excluded if they are bad, not because they fail to pass muster on a list of social issues.
Illegitimate reasons to exclude a candidate, views on the following...
Abortion
Capital Punishment
Right to Die
GLB Rights (marriage)
RKBA
Church/State issues
and so on
That's not say that Harriet here is all that and a bag of chips too. Her qualifications are at once refreshing and dubious. She's certainly not cut form the East/West coast mold. But for a President that carried neither is it really so surprising?
-Censored
I think the affirmative action decision was a poorly made one, one of the worst examples of "Sandy Says" justice. And I think liberals need to win more in the legislature and less in the courts.
But the idea that because something is constitutional 20 years ago it should be constitutional now is stupid.
Otherwise, Jim Crow laws would've never been overturned. Separate but equal would be the law of the land. Laws against mixed-race marriages would still be legal. All of these were overturned by so-called "activist judges".
Activist judge is just a codeword for a judge that's doing something conservatives don't like.
Post a Comment
<< Home