FileFront Forums

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)

Jeffro October 6th, 2005 01:04 PM
Harriet Miers.
 
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

Relander October 6th, 2005 01:28 PM
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.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. October 6th, 2005 01:31 PM
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

WarHawk109 October 6th, 2005 02:04 PM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Nothing wrong with Republicans controling the the SC IMO.

Blood n Guts October 6th, 2005 03:05 PM
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.

GreatGrizzly October 6th, 2005 03:30 PM
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.
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.

Admiral Donutz October 6th, 2005 03:40 PM
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.

Blood n Guts October 6th, 2005 04:34 PM
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.

USMA2010 October 6th, 2005 05:21 PM
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.

NiteStryker October 6th, 2005 06:04 PM
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.

USMA2010 October 6th, 2005 06:07 PM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Amen. Too bad Estrada isn't open for nomination anymore.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. October 6th, 2005 06:09 PM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Like i said, im going on faith with this one.....she might be the perfect person for the job, her lack of background may be a blessing in disguise.......i guess we shall see

NiteStryker October 6th, 2005 06:19 PM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
her lack of background may be a blessing in disguise.......i guess we shall see
You (and Bush) may be right, Rehenquist had no experience either. But I would feel more comfortable with someone that had a backround in the field. We dont like to hire high school dropouts for NASA...

Jeffro October 6th, 2005 06:34 PM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NiteStryker
You (and Bush) may be right, Rehenquist had no experience either. But I would feel more comfortable with someone that had a backround in the field. We dont like to hire high school dropouts for NASA...
Lies. We send monkeys up into space. ;)

Relander October 7th, 2005 01:20 PM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatGrizzly
and with the democrats power low, we are one step closer to a fascist controlled america :rolleyes:
Fascist controlled? The Republicans have a majority in all branches of government (Congress, White House, Governorships, State legislatures), but not big enough so they aren't able to make any sort of autocracy nor they want it. Blood n Guts said it better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMA2010
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.
Thanks for information.

Let's see what will follow.

Oblivious October 7th, 2005 04:23 PM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
I'm not a big fan of this nominee. I really don't know much about her, but that's not my main issue with it...

Bottom line for me is that at 60, she's just too old. I can't imagine she'd be there for more than 10-15 years. There are plenty of well qualified candidates for the court that are nearly a generation younger.

Jeffro October 8th, 2005 09:32 AM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Bush Says Miers Has Experience, Leadership

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051008/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush


Quote:
WASHINGTON - President Bush countered conservative displeasure Saturday with a detailed defense of his Supreme Court nominee, saying White House counsel Harriet Miers would bring to the bench vast experience in the courtroom and at the highest levels of government.


"No Supreme Court nominee in the last 35 years has exceeded Harriet Miers' overall range of experience in courtroom litigation; service in federal, state and local government; leadership in local, state and national bar associations and pro bono and charitable activities," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

"Throughout her life, Ms. Miers has excelled at everything she has done," he added.

A growing number on the right have expressed displeasure with Bush's selection of Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

The grumbling stems from Miers' career, which encompassed 28 years as a corporate attorney in Texas, stints as a member of the Dallas City Council and as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission and, since 2001, as a top member of Bush's White House staff.

None of the positions provide a public record clearly identifying her as a strong conservative.

Some worry that Miers could end up disappointing the right much like Justice David Souter, a little-known judge nominated to the court in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush who later turned out to be more liberal than expected.

Other critics have expressed concern about her lack of experience grappling with constitutional reasoning.

Robert Bork — whose nomination to the high court was rejected by the Senate in 1987 — called the choice of Miers "a disaster on every level."

"It's a little late to develop a constitutional philosophy or begin to work it out when you're on the court already," Bork said Friday on MSNBC's "The Situation with Tucker Carlson." "It's kind of a slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years."

Bush sought to give a rebuttal to the critics — offering a point-by-point recounting of her background and talents that revealed the level of concern at the White House about the conservative reaction.

The president touted the "hundreds of cases in state and federal courts, from massive commercial litigation to criminal cases to civil disputes" that Miers handled as an attorney at a large Texas law firm. And he said, as White House counsel Miers addresses complex matters of constitutional law and "sensitive issues of executive-congressional relations."

Bush also spoke glowingly of a candidate outside the realm of sitting judges. Since 1933, he said, 10 of the 34 justices — such as the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist — came to the Supreme Court directly from positions in the executive branch.

"Harriet Miers will be prudent in exercising judicial power and firm in defending judicial independence," he said.

As of Friday, the end of Miers' first week as the nominee, she had met with 16 senators. She was spending the weekend in Texas gathering material from her legal career to answer the Senate's questions, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
Look at her "experience" :uhoh: :

Quote:
The grumbling stems from Miers' career, which encompassed 28 years as a corporate attorney in Texas, stints as a member of the Dallas City Council and as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission and, since 2001, as a top member of Bush's White House staff.
Oooh...the lottery commission!

NiteStryker October 8th, 2005 11:26 PM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffro
Oooh...the lottery commission!
Hey man give her a break. It takes alot of effort to run a state lottery and draw numbers!

I say that makes her the best qualified person out of dozens of younger people with years of judicial experience!

:cort:

Jeffro October 9th, 2005 09:45 AM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Some Democrats Jump to Miers' Defense

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...su_co/miers_27

Quote:
WASHINGTON - Some Senate Democrats are jumping in the middle of a Republican fray to defend Harriet Miers from conservative criticism that she isn't qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. That doesn't mean Democrats will vote to approve President Bush's longtime confidante for the high court or give her an easy time at a Senate confirmation hearing.

Behind the scenes, a half-dozen aides to Senate Democrats — speaking on condition of anonymity to protect their jobs — admit that they are enjoying watching the GOP's right wing beat up the president. None will say whether their bosses feel the same way — or might be insincere when they heap praise on Miers and call her critics unfair.

"All the trashing is coming from the right wing of the Republican Party," Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record), D-Iowa, said in a conference call with reporters. "I really think it's despicable what they're doing."

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., accused critics of Miers' nomination of being "incredibly sexist."

"They're saying a woman who was one of the first to head up a major law firm with over 400 lawyers doesn't have intellectual heft," Mikulski said. "I find this a double standard."

More unusual is the outright praise from some Democrats for the person who would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical moderate vote on abortion, affirmative action and other close rulings.

"I like what I hear so far," said Sen. Mark Pryor (news, bio, voting record), D-Ark.

Many conservatives don't. Several columnists have derided Bush's decision, and some groups have called on the president to withdraw her name. Bush insists that Miers is worthy, citing her 35-year legal career and her service in city and state government as well as the White House.

"When she goes before the Senate, I am confident that all Americans will see what I see every day: Harriet Miers is a woman of intelligence, strength and conviction," the president said Saturday in his weekly radio address. "And when she is confirmed by the Senate, I am confident that she will leave a lasting mark on the Supreme Court and will be a justice who makes all Americans proud."

There are 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent senator, Jim Jeffords of Vermont. If six conservative Republicans vote against Miers, a united Democratic caucus along with Jeffords could defeat her nomination.

Galling to many conservatives is that Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada recommended that Bush nominate Miers and has praised her several times since then without actually promising to vote for her.

The White House enlisted many conservative leaders to testify that Miers would be a reliable vote. Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), the Senate Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, tried to counter that assurance when he asserted that Miers pledged to be independent when they discussed her nomination.

"I said, 'Would you disavow people who send out assurances that they know how you're going to vote?' She said, 'Absolutely,'" said Leahy. "She said, 'I will be my own person, I will be independent. Nobody has the authority or right or ability to tell how I'm going to vote.'"

Democrats are preparing to blanket the White House with document requests to help flesh out Miers' judicial philosophy. However, her work there would fall under executive privilege or lawyer-client privilege.

Bush aides have anticipated such requests. While Miers will answer senators' questions, the White House will not provide them with "confidential deliberative documents" relating to work for the president, spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Democrats are keying on demands by conservatives that Miers be forthcoming at her confirmation hearings. Last month, the court's new chief justice, John Roberts, had solid support from conservatives when he declined to answer many questions from Democrats. This time, Democrats hope Miers will feel pressured to be more open.

"The idea that Americans shouldn't know what the judicial philosophy of the nominee to this powerful, powerful position is, is wearing thin with the American people, whether they be liberal, conservative or moderate," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.
Why? Why defend her!? She doesn't know the judicial system from a poptart...

I say we ship most of the Democrats and Republicans (Including John Kerry, Dubya, Dick(head) Cheney, and Ted Kennedy) off to a secluded island and start clean. McCain and a few others will stay, but that will be about it.

Blood n Guts October 9th, 2005 11:09 AM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
It's politics. They don't really approve of her, but they're jumping at the chance to capitalize on a fight within the GOP and make them look bad. That includes the use of sexism allegations against those that do not support her. Supporting her also means putting someone on the bench that, due to age, likely won't remain on for very long.

GreatGrizzly October 9th, 2005 11:17 AM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relander
Fascist controlled? The Republicans have a majority in all branches of government (Congress, White House, Governorships, State legislatures), but not big enough so they aren't able to make any sort of autocracy nor they want it. Blood n Guts said it better.
not big enough NOW, but in the future they might.

The same of course goes for the dems, but they arnt a prob right now

dont say that it cant happen, because it just might surprise you

(and yes im a tinfoil hat type)

Blood n Guts October 9th, 2005 03:17 PM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
As posted above, there have been many times in US history where a single party has wielded large amounts of power and influence by means of a huge majority over a short period of time or a solid majority over a long period of time. This doesn't mean that it never will happen, but if provides a strong correlation that shows that there is very little chance of it ever happening, even if a party does gain the kind of power needed for it to occur.

Besides, a fascist government is opposite in structure to the one favored by the Republicans.

NiteStryker October 9th, 2005 03:22 PM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Just because our government right now is basicially under republican control doesnt mean we can do as we please. We still have to at least listen to the minority.

Why is it that I never seem to hear Republicans complain as much as democrats do? When the government has been under democratic control historicially, I dont ever remember hearing repubs complaining. Yet any time repubs take it, dems whine like there is no tomorrow.

Relander October 10th, 2005 09:24 AM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NiteStryker
Why is it that I never seem to hear Republicans complain as much as democrats do? When the government has been under democratic control historicially, I dont ever remember hearing repubs complaining. Yet any time repubs take it, dems whine like there is no tomorrow.
Because:

A. You don't read the news & get information from both sides, at least not so well.

B. Because the Republicans have a majority in Congress, governorships and state legislatures and there's a Republican president so the Democrats have more to fight against and they have to keep themselves visible in the media in order to get more support & votes.

C. You have just started to follow the news some years ago.

D. You want to believe otherwise.

E. All above.

Jeffro October 12th, 2005 11:19 AM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051012/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Quote:
"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

So he picks a choice based on similar religious implications and not judicial qualifications? Wow...simply wow. :cort:

GreatGrizzly October 12th, 2005 12:38 PM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood n Guts
As posted above, there have been many times in US history where a single party has wielded large amounts of power and influence by means of a huge majority over a short period of time or a solid majority over a long period of time. This doesn't mean that it never will happen, but if provides a strong correlation that shows that there is very little chance of it ever happening, even if a party does gain the kind of power needed for it to occur.
ya thats what they said when the nazi's started gaining power :rolleyes:

Blood n Guts October 12th, 2005 04:05 PM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
I seriously doubt that. Post WWI Weimar Republic Germany had no history as a democratic country to compare to. The US does, and that history shows that under conditions where parties gain a large amount of power, they did not turned the nation into a dictatorship.

To compare the rise of the Nazis to "a rise of the Republicans" is also inaccurate. The Nazis never won a majority of the German parliament, nor held the most seats of any party. Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Prime minister. When the Reichstag caught fire, Hitler blamed in on communist subversives and exercised his constitutional right to rule by decree, one of the many flaws in the Weimar constitution. The Nazis did not seize power by gaining a majority in the government, which is how you claim the Republicans will, and has already been refuted by the history of previous powerful majorities. In fact no Fascist government was set up after being popularly elected. Franco won the Spanish Civil War. Mussolini and his black shirts were given (seized) power by King Victor Emanuel III.

Could the Republicans seize power in a similar matter and then set up a fascist government? Possible although so highly improbable that we likely will see the earth conquered by aliens first. A common nature of all fascist governments was an origin as a group that sought to overthrow the government. Mussolini and Franco successfully did so; Hitler and the Nazis tried to in the failed Beer Hall Putsch, which resulted in his imprisonment for treason. The Republicans have not demonstrated any such nature. Even the concept of them creating a fascist government is seriously flawed. On a political spectrum, Republicans are the exact opposite of an all powerful central government and government that exerts large amounts of control over the economy. Believing the Republicans to set up a fascist government is only second to most improbable after them setting up a communist government.

Jeffro October 18th, 2005 09:07 AM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Miers Supported Ban on Most Abortions

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Quote:
"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature," asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.

Miers checked "yes" to that question, and all of the group's questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off city health boards and commissions.
Now it's crystal clear what her motives are going to be if she gets voted in.

Jeffro October 27th, 2005 11:31 AM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Bush Abandons Push for Miers Nomination

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/miers_wit...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Owned.

Seriously, I hope he picks a more qualified person this time around...

USMA2010 October 27th, 2005 01:08 PM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
I understand what you are trying to say, I just doubt that "owned" is the best way to put it. Howard Dean got owned. Jimmy Carter got owned. Bob Dole got owned. Meirs got rejected.

This is my personal theory...

I'm starting to think W announced the Miers news today to knock the White Sox championship off the front page. It makes sense. W's parents are humiliated rooting for the Astros at Game 4, and he steals the Sox thunder by announcing Miers withdrawal. Yet, again, the White Sox get no respect from the media or the White House.

Jeffro October 27th, 2005 01:53 PM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMA2010
I understand what you are trying to say, I just doubt that "owned" is the best way to put it. Howard Dean got owned. Jimmy Carter got owned. Bob Dole got owned. Meirs got rejected.
This is my personal theory...
I'm starting to think W announced the Miers news today to knock the White Sox championship off the front page. It makes sense. W's parents are humiliated rooting for the Astros at Game 4, and he steals the Sox thunder by announcing Miers withdrawal. Yet, again, the White Sox get no respect from the media or the White House.
Owned was just a silly way of putting that she was rejected. It probably wasn't the best word to use, but it just popped into my head when I saw the headline. ;)

As for your theory, that is very interesting and viable. Whether it was intentional of Bush to do that or not is a question that may never be
answered in its entirety, however.

P.S.-GO SOX! :banana2:

DavetheFo October 28th, 2005 06:58 AM
Re: Harriet Miers.
 
Heh, and they say the media isnt controlled by the government :p


All times are GMT -7.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.