FileFront Forums - Harriet Miers.

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)

- The Pub (http://forums.filefront.com/pub-578/)

- - Harriet Miers. (http://forums.filefront.com/pub/219355-harriet-miers.html)

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative senators normally loyal to the White House expressed persistent doubts about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers on Wednesday despite President George W. Bush's assurances that his counsel is the best person for the job.

"That's the president's, his description. It would not be mine," said Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record), a Virginia Republican. "Who knows, maybe a month from now, I'll say 'gosh no wonder he thought that.' At this stage I don't know enough."

Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), a Mississippi Republican, told MSNBC, "I'm not comfortable with the nomination and so we'll just have to work through the process in due time."

As Republicans normally loyal to the White House expressed concerns about where Miers stands on such hot-button social issues as abortion, the White House continued its push to bolster support for its Supreme Court nominee, who has never been a judge.

"The White House is reaching out to a variety of lawmakers and groups to talk about Harriet's qualifications, conservative judicial philosophy, professional accomplishments, and record of community service," said spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Ed Gillespie, a former Republican Party chairman helping shepherd Miers through the Senate, met privately with Senate Republicans and made the case for the nominee.

Afterward, Gillespie said while many lawmakers have questions, "I feel the nomination is in strong shape .... There is a lot of support among Senate Republicans for Harriet Miers."

At this point, no member of the Republican-controlled Senate has announced opposition to Miers, and members on both sides of the aisle, including Democratic leader Harry Reid, have spoken glowingly of her.

But many, including Reid, have also said they are anxious to hear Miers' answers at her confirmation hearing before deciding whether to confirm the nominee to the high court.

COMPLAINTS FROM THE RIGHT

Bush's nomination of Miers has drawn complaints from the right that she may not be as conservative a justice as the president had promised during his 2000 and 2004 White House campaigns.

Bush defended his choice on Tuesday, a day after nominating her to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, saying Miers would be the type of justice he promised -- one who would rule in strict compliance with the U.S. Constitution and not try to legislate from the bench.

"I picked the best person I could find," Bush said.

But some conservatives complain that Miers' positions on major legal issues are unknown and that the nominee, a former head of the State Bar of Texas, has too little experience.

"I expect her to be confirmed," said Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record), an Ohio Republican and a member of the Judiciary Committee that will hold her confirmation hearing, expected early next month.

Emerging from a meeting with Miers, DeWine said he would wait until after the hearing to announce if he would back the nomination, but described Miers as "extremely bright," "tough as nails" and "very independent."

Republican Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) of Kansas, appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," was asked whether he would vote against Miers if she says that the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is settled law. "There's a good chance then that I would," said Brownback, a staunch abortion foe who plans to meet with Miers on Thursday.

The big unknown is just which questions Miers will answer at her confirmation hearing.

At Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation hearing last month, Roberts said he respects legal precedent but refused to say if he would reverse the 1973 abortion decision.

Roberts said to stake out a position would be to improperly rule on a case that could come before him. Republicans backed his position; Democrats complained he was dodging hot-button questions.

I posted this in the devious tyrant forums and here is my opinion on the issue:

Roberts isn't that bad of a choice compared to this new, unexperienced choice of Harriet Miers. From what the news sources have been saying, she doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to court knowledge and experience. I get this feeling that good ole' Dubya picked her because she is a "born again christian" and she attends an evangelical church.

P.S.-Relander, I know your opinion already. :p

Re: Harriet Miers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffro

P.S.-Relander, I know your opinion already. :p

Yes you do, but I shall post it in here also :D

It would be a grave thing if Harriet Miers is accepted as new member into Supreme Court. The balance of power in SC would turn in favour for Republicans and then the whole country would be in Republicans' control which I don't see as a good thing (same applies to Democrats). In worst scenario, abortion would be made illegal again, rights of homosexuals would be heavily restricted and the decisions of Supreme Court would favour the Republicans.

Overall, the Supreme Court has too much political power and it isn't made up of neutral law experts, but the ones who follow party lines (at least to some extent):uhm:

Correct me if I'm factually wrong here, but some sort of balance of power is needed in politics, including Supreme Court.

Re: Harriet Miers.

Personally, i dont really know that much about her...

im just gonna go on faith with this one, and hope she is the right person for the job

Re: Harriet Miers.

Nothing wrong with Republicans controling the the SC IMO.

Re: Harriet Miers.

IMO, Roberts was a pretty good choice that many people could agree on. I can't say the same about Miers. If she is as strict of a constitutionalist as the article claims she is, she can't be that bad (strict constitutionalist usually stay within the parameters of the constitution, and going outside the constitution is how power is abused in the supreme court), but that still doesn't change the fact that she has no experience as a judge and even if she was extremely qualified, it still looks like Bush is rewarding one of his supporters. I don't expect her to be confirmed.

I don't really think that the Supreme Court has too much power; more so it appears that this only occurs when it is abused. Extremists on both ends of the spectrum seem to discard interpreting the law for legislating it when the constitution disagrees with their beliefs (usually more on the left, no offense intended, but the fact that the left views interpretation of the constitution much loosely and the right strictly tends to cause this). For areas where an issue is defined quite clearly, no justice, regardless of beliefs or political affiliation, should be able to issue a ruling that does not follow how the issue is addressed within the constitution. It is their job to uphold the law as it is written, not to legislate it as they believe; that is congress’s job since the majority has direct control over congress, has congress pass what it wants and needs a supermajority to alter the constitution. On the issue of gay marriage, there should be no question of its constitutionality that they are entitled to the full legal benefits of marriage because of the 14th amendment. On the issue of God in the pledge of allegiance, it should not be removed because it does not violate the 1st amendment.

If the issue is in a gray area that it is hotly contested it is preferable and usual practice to throw out the case; however it can be appropriate for the Supreme Court to rule on and create new constitutional law in this case. Yes, the left or right side, whichever has more justices on the bench, will most likely enforce its opinion, but the fact that they have a majority on the court usually represents the fact that they were appointed by a majority that shares their ideals and that that majority was in power more frequently. Majority rules, so a pro left or right decision on a gray area is justified under majority rules. This may seem to go against the doctrine of interpreting the law strictly and allowing the popular controlled congress legislate new law, but if the constitution is vague in an area, as it often is, it can be interpreted in several ways; they aren’t changing the words of the constitution to fit their beliefs so it does not qualify as legislating nor abusing power. So long as this interpretation does not violate other areas of the constituition or is the much less likely of the two, its doesn't seem to comprimise balance of power or pose a threat.

Re: Harriet Miers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relander

you are 100% correct

Judges should be NEUTRAL. Not republican.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relander

the whole country would be in Republicans' control which I don't see as a good thing (same applies to Democrats). In worst scenario, abortion would be made illegal again, rights of homosexuals would be heavily restricted and the decisions of Supreme Court would favour the Republicans..

and with the democrats power low, we are one step closer to a fascist controlled america :rolleyes:

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Re: Harriet Miers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relander

Overall, the Supreme Court has too much political power and it isn't made up of neutral law experts, but the ones who follow party lines (at least to some extent):uhm:

Correct me if I'm factually wrong here, but some sort of balance of power is needed in politics, including Supreme Court.

True, looking from the sideline it looks like the whole supreme court (and all other 'organs" out there) is a giant weightscale which is purposely brought out of balance depending on the party that is in power at the time. The supreme court should be as neutral as possible, the people should be picked for their expertise (skills and experience) and known for acting as the neutral blindfolded Lady Justitia (or whatever she translates to in English, here it is "Vrouwe Justitia"). A good judge is able to put his/her personal believes and political views apart.

Re: Harriet Miers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatGrizzly

you are 100% correct

Judges should be NEUTRAL. Not republican.

Almost all judges are either liberal or conservative to some extent. Political neutrality in their descions pretty much means purely using the constitution as the guideline for their decisions, which implies strict interpretation of the constitution, something both Roberts and Miers say they stand for.

Quote:

and with the democrats power low, we are one step closer to a fascist controlled america
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

1818-Era of good feelings. President Monroe elected with all but one electoral vote (one elector decided that Washington should be the only president ever elected unanimously). The Federalists party collapses. 86% of the house controlled by Jeffersonian Republicans. No dictatorship established.
1848-1860-Every president elected is a Democrat. Democrats consistently have control of congress. Their major rival, the Whig party, dissolves in 1856. Streak ends in 1858 with a Republican majority in the House and in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln. No dictatorship established.
1860-1884-Every president elected is a Republican (Andrew Johnson counts as a Republican because he was Lincolns VP, even though he was originally a democrat), the streak ending with the election of Grover Cleveland in 1884. From 1884 till 1912, there are only two terms served by a Democrat, both by Grover Cleveland (inconsecutively). For almost all of the period from 1860-1912, Republicans control at least one house in congress (often both). No dictatorship established.
1964-Democrats win presidency (LBJ), 68% of the house and 66% of the senate. The Republicans didn't collapse, but the Democrats had enough control to pass a constitutional amendment without a single affirming vote from the other party. No dictatorship established
Fascist America under the republicans? I doubt it. Having a very Republican government would mean a smaller government with more federalism and less centralization. Hardly the large, all powerful, centralized government of a fascist nation.

Re: Harriet Miers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relander

Yes you do, but I shall post it in here also :D
It would be a grave thing if Harriet Miers is accepted as new member into Supreme Court. The balance of power in SC would turn in favour for Republicans and then the whole country would be in Republicans' control which I don't see as a good thing (same applies to Democrats). In worst scenario, abortion would be made illegal again, rights of homosexuals would be heavily restricted and the decisions of Supreme Court would favour the Republicans.
Overall, the Supreme Court has too much political power and it isn't made up of neutral law experts, but the ones who follow party lines (at least to some extent):uhm:
Correct me if I'm factually wrong here, but some sort of balance of power is needed in politics, including Supreme Court.

Not true. The Senate and House almost never require a simple majority (51% or more) in their decisions, but either a 2/3 majority or 3/4 majority. Even though the Republicans hold most seats, the Democrats still hold enough that they can block legislaton, so long as they don't care about their political campaign.

Besides, if the choices are unpopular, the people can simply vote that person out of office.

But its alright if they are Democrats GreatGrizzly? That doesn't show any bias at all.

Re: Harriet Miers.

I am quite dissappointed by this personal favor rather than a professional appointment. This is a position for the highest court in the land. We need a positivly qualified person.