he was probably like
hey, you hate abortion right

and she was all like
what are you talking about
the last time you knocked me up, i took care of that shit myself, with the plunger and a broom handle, jeez george, you really are dumb

and bush was all like

i gotta do less china white

10/5/2005 4:13:40 PM

The best line in all of South Park, almost, is as follows:

Kenny?

What are you going to plunge?

10/5/2005 4:26:28 PM

Quote :

"Once the task becomes of overwhelming complexity... oh, fuck it, just send anyone. They're all equally not qualified."

No, you are twisting my position -- which you clearly don't understand at all -- to the very opposite of the point I have made.

Being a Supreme Court justice -- or an executive -- or anyone in a high-level position, requires a gut ability to do a job that is important above and beyond the paper qualifications and presumed "reflection." We're talking about real, hard-core, big-picture, intensive decision making here, not mere academic philosophizing. Plus that person has to be tough as nails and stand up to constant media scrutiny for the rest of her life.

And I strongly believe that the best way to find someone like that is -- to know them personally. President Bush chose Miers for this job because he knows her, and he knows what she can do.

That is precisely the polar opposite from "just sending anyone."

You or others might call it "cronyism," but in the real-world of business and life, it's usually called "networking." It's a common sense notion that resumes don't tell you much about a person, and everyone is selling themselves on interview day.

Quote :

"In general, I think it's quite remarkable that for someone who advocates the idea of people's courts and doesn't like the current status quo, you count on magic way too much and plus put the whole process in the hands of the elites, which seems to be contrary to your goals. "We have very specific problems with the court: erosion of property rights, infringment on states' right etc. Let's just vaguely introduce some "fresh blood". That oughtta solve all our problems.""

The President is not an elite. He is an elected representative of the people. In fact, he is someone whom we have implicitly trusted to make decisions many times larger than this one, involving life and death.

Therefore your complaint that the public has been removed is moot. The public was directly involved in electing George W. Bush to his office.

This is a Republican system of government, it is not a direct democracy. Nor is it a meritocracy.

We're expected to hire judges who have this intense preconception of Constitutional law -- and yet, we (as a public) aren't expected to hire Presidents who have the same military qualifications. We don't hire Senators who are exclusively lawyers, even though they write the law.

And now we're not supposed to trust the President with choosing a justice, even though ... we trust him with nuclear weapons.

Amazing, just amazing.

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 10:07 PM. Reason : foo]

10/5/2005 10:05:18 PM

I don't trust him with nuclear weapons or anything else he can't pronounce...

10/5/2005 10:10:45 PM

It's pronounced nukular.

10/6/2005 11:25:23 AM

many past justices had no prior experience as a judge before they joined the court

10/6/2005 12:48:19 PM

^^^ I didn't twist your position at all. You said objective qualifications didn't matter for a position of a Justice. Clearly they matter for some other jobs. Your explanation suggested the qualifications become less and less relevant when the job becomes more and more complex. This line of logic appears ridiculous to me. You can justifiably argue the selection process has to be less and less formal and encompass much more than reviewing a resume and I'll agree. But the need for relevant qualifications only rises, not decays.

Networking doesn't work the way you describe. No, not even in the "real world". Yes, I know. I'm not a lizard either but I'm willing to stand up by the proposition that lizards don't have 15 legs. Knowing somebody personally will give you an edge over others equally qualified. It will never replace your empty resume. But go ahead prove me wrong by sending a fake resume with "helped code in BASIC a game where a frog is supposed to cross the road" and get a team leader position at Microsoft. Even if you know Bill Gates personally.

Speaking of the elite... President may call his shots but the public may disagree. I never suggested we were under the obligation to second guess every single one of his decisions. On the contrary, you argued it was inappropriate of us to disagree with his particular decisions (which does not happen all the time!), because he knows better. That's exactly the thinking you're accusing your opponents of having.

BTW, We don't have a caste system here. Everybody gets elected or appointed by elected people. If my argument regarding George Bush is moot, how is yours regarding appelate judges not?

Thirdly, we don't expect President to have military qualifications because (surprise!) he doesn't make military decisions. At all. If he had to, we'd have to require him to demonstrate the necessary skills. Contrary to what Lenin (and seemingly you) thought, cooks cannot run governments. It's impossible. IF you wanna do something, you need to have qualifications for that. The PResident has people make military decisions for him. His personal decisions are purely political. Senators don't have to be lawyers because (surprise!) they don't write laws. Their staff does it for them. They are supposed to guide the process. Their job is to find competent staff and be receptive to their comments and be able to act on their feedback.

Finally, I don't trust any President with nuclear weapons. Which is why I think a war needs to be formally declared and approved by the Congress as (surprise!) the Constitution suggests. Again you seem to suggest it's somehow a given that a President has unlimited power (overall or in certain areas). This is not true. Some people may wish it were true, but it isn't. Plus, speaking of particulars, this very President has already chosen two FEMA directors... No sane person can continue to "trust" him make totally unchecked hiring decisions, even if the only feasible "check" amounts to voicing dissent.

10/6/2005 12:50:06 PM

Quote :

"George Will rumor: He stole a copy of Jimmy Carter's briefing book for Reagan's debate preparation."

he still denies that. whether or not it really happened, carter could have dropped every fact, stat, concept, and truth in the book in that debate and lost b/c he was up against an actor, once again proving that the greatest political skill is the ability to BS.

Carter was too honest and moral a guy to be a real politician, so he failed.

10/6/2005 4:57:49 PM

^he also struggled with the concept of economics, but that is for another thread

10/6/2005 5:52:31 PM

^as a i said, he was an honest and moral guy. pretty smart too.

just a bad leader.

10/6/2005 6:16:33 PM

Boy, this should instill some confidence in those who wonder about Mier's ability to be a supreme court justice:

Quote :

"In an initial chat with Miers, according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices. Miers responded with "Warren" — which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade. Miers said she meant Warren Burger, the sources said."

How the hell do fuck up answering who your favorite justice is?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601713.html

[Edited on October 7, 2005 at 10:55 AM. Reason : ]

10/7/2005 10:54:51 AM

someone probably set her up

"heh heh, hey harriet, if they ask who your favorite is, just say Warren"

10/7/2005 11:05:59 AM

At least the media is finally growing some balls and reporting the half truths of the administration.

Bush says Miers was ranked among the best lawyers in the country, ABC pointed out that she was ranked among the most influencial because of her close ties to GW.

I supported Roberts for Chief Justice, but this is nothing but bullshit.

10/7/2005 11:22:17 AM

Quote :

"You said objective qualifications didn't matter for a position of a Justice."

Now you're not only twisting my position, you're also taking me way out of context.

I was talking specifically about the "objective" (haha!) qualification that people (who oppose Harriet Miers, of course) _presume_ to be required of a justice, which is that of being a Constitutional luminary.

Obviously I wouldn't support hiring the President's janitor for the position.

In fact I think I devoted some of this thread to the argument that Harriet Miers, by virtue of her background, is not _utterly_ unqualified, even by that definition.

Quote :

"Knowing somebody personally will give you an edge over others equally qualified. It will never replace your empty resume."

Of course I never founded my position on the idea that Harriet Miers's resume is "empty," so your dissertation on how networking does and does not work is irrelevant. Actually I think the basis of my argument is that the specific "objective" requirement of "Constitutional scholar" is simply stupid, elitist, invented-from-thin-air, blatantly unconstitutional, and political in nature -- and, finally, altogether overwhelmed by the requirement that we hire someone with a good "gut" ability to make decisions.

Quote :

" On the contrary, you argued it was inappropriate of us to disagree with his particular decisions (which does not happen all the time!), because he knows better."

But in this case, he does know better. We're talking about nominating a person, not the macro-economics of farm subsidies.

Quote :

"If my argument regarding George Bush is moot, how is yours regarding appelate judges not?"

What?

Quote :

"Thirdly, we don't expect President to have military qualifications because (surprise!) he doesn't make military decisions"

Um...he's the commander-in-chief of the military. The buck stops with him on military decisions; the only reason anyone makes a decision for him, is because he has delegated his authority to them. He has the unilateral ability to take back that power as he sees fit.

Maybe you're unclear on the concept of a "commander-in-chief." The President is ultimately responsible for every action the military takes (or, for that matter, doesn't take).

And whose decision was it to wage war in Iraq, or was that a purely political decision with no military considerations?

Quote :

"Which is why I think a war needs to be formally declared and approved by the Congress as (surprise!) the Constitution suggests."

That's pretty hilarious. First you're inventing qualifications for a Supreme Court justice ("Constitutional Scholar") that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

Now you're lecturing me about the President's Constitutional ability to wage war.

For the record, the Constitution does not say that a war needs to be formally declared. It says that the Congress may declare a war.

And more so, your point is irrelevant anyway--once a war is underway, the _tactical_ decision to use nuclear weapons is in the President's hands and noone else's.

Quote :

"Again you seem to suggest it's somehow a given that a President has unlimited power (overall or in certain areas)."

I don't suggest that, the Constitution mandates it. But more so, you're missing the point -- the President only has this "unlimited" power for a certain amount of time, after which the people may choose to elect someone else. And it is still limited by the law, whereby he may be impeached.

Just like, for instance, a Supreme Court justice.

Quote :

"Plus, speaking of particulars, this very President has already chosen two FEMA directors... No sane person can continue to "trust" him make totally unchecked hiring decisions, even if the only feasible "check" amounts to voicing dissent."

No, that argument holds no logical water. Appointing a director of FEMA, and _nominating_ a Supreme Court justice are substantively different in every way imaginable.

Furthermore, it's not as if ALL the President's hires have been bad. Or are we going to have a debate now about whether Condolezza Rice is "qualified" to be Secretary of State?

10/8/2005 12:37:05 PM

Condi Rice for the NEXT Supreme Court justice....after Mier.....seeing that all the others are older than dirt, they are probably gonna die/retire within the next 5 years.

10/8/2005 3:05:31 PM

the letters

10/11/2005 5:21:50 PM

Quote :

"AUSTIN, Tex., Oct. 10 - "You are the best governor ever - deserving of great respect," Harriet E. Miers wrote to George W. Bush days after his 51st birthday in July 1997. She also found him "cool," said he and his wife, Laura, were "the greatest!" and told him: "Keep up the great work. Texas is blessed." Ms. Miers, President Bush's personal lawyer and his selection for a Supreme Court seat, emerges as an unabashed fan in more than 2,000 pages of official correspondence and personal notes made public on Monday by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission in response to open-records requests. Mr. Bush returned the admiration, the files show. After Ms. Miers's birthday wishes, he wrote thanks and a "happy 52nd to you." He added, "I appreciate your friendship and candor - never hold back your sage advice." The documents, including many minutes of meetings of the Texas Lottery Commission, which Ms. Miers headed, shed little light on her legal thinking, but underscore her ties to Mr. Bush. Because of their closeness and her lack of a judicial record, some critics have dismissed Ms. Miers as a crony unworthy of nomination to the court but for her confidential service as the president's lawyer. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/politics/politicsspecial1/11archive.html?ei=5090&en=4e99893ba3e924ee&ex=1286683200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Quote :

"David Frum recently wrote of Miers, President George W. Bush's Supreme Court nominee, "She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met." Stop the confirmation! Here is a woman who desperately needs to meet more men. No wonder she's 60 and never married."

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/lifestyle/columnists.nsf/bettycuniberti/story/0A34F00BB55B6A628625709200323DD5?OpenDocument

She's not a crony, she's a toady or a lackey.

10/11/2005 6:50:20 PM

Quote :

"Stop the confirmation! Here is a woman who desperately needs to meet more men. No wonder she's 60 and never married."

thats pretty funny

10/11/2005 6:52:33 PM

its the snl skit where she jumps in bush's arms was spot on

10/11/2005 7:23:47 PM

Claim:

Quote :

"Nothing in her professional role called on her to consider these things? Now that I find a stretch. She's the head counsel to the White House--her entire job is dealing with the interplay between the major branches of government. Plus, as has been noted, she has a background in vetting judicial nominees."

Reality:

Quote :

"Interestingly, despite what Bush describes as Miers's "stellar record of accomplishment in the law," he did not name her White House counsel in his first term. Instead, she was appointed staff secretary, a manager of presidential paperwork. While many distinguished people have served as staff secretary, including Brett Kavanaugh, it may say something about Bush's view of Miers's capacities that he first put her in such a detail-oriented staff job, rather than one grappling with major legal and policy issues. Miers only became counsel to the president, the top legal job in the White House, in February 2005. Seven months later, she was nominated for a Supreme Court seat."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/miniter200510060731.asp

10/12/2005 1:12:51 AM

Quote :

"she has a background in vetting judicial nominees"

people who chose people for jobs are good at doing said jobs?

the human resource person can fill in for any job he/she fills?

these people sounds like supermen. HR people will soon rule the world i suppose.

[Edited on October 12, 2005 at 2:06 AM. Reason : -]

10/12/2005 2:05:25 AM

10/12/2005 7:15:15 AM

^ while that looks like humor i'd say its closer to truth than satire

10/12/2005 10:46:28 AM

yeah, the real letter has little hearts over the i's instead of little circles

10/12/2005 11:00:47 AM

Fafblog Interviews: HARRIET MIERS

FAFBLOG: It's great to have you here Harriet Miers! We got a ton a questions here we been waitin to ask.
GEORGE BUSH: Great to be here, Fafnir. Ask away.
FB: Waaaait a minute. Mr. President?
BUSH: Absolutely I'm the president, an' that's why I want the Senate to swiftly confirm my good friend Harriet Miers.
FB: I'm confused.
BUSH: Like all judicial nominees, Harriet Miers is covered under executive privilege, Fafnir. The president needs the freedom to appoint his Supreme Court in complete privacy. Ms. Miers will remain bagged, sealed and classified until her confirmation by the United States Senate.
FB: And yet we know so much about her! Her name... her church... her name. You've been pretty generous with information so far, Mr. President.
BUSH: It's my dedication to openness and transparency, Fafnir.
FB: And we appreciate it. Now, how'd you make the pick?
BUSH: I just looked around an' picked the most qualified justice I could find. There was the coffee mug, the stapler, an' Harriet Miers, and in the end I just had to go with the candidate I felt was the strongest.
FB: Wow, and that was your "World's Best President" mug, too!
BUSH: It was a tough call, let me tellya. But don't count that coffee mug out forever - it's gotta lotta smart ideas about eminent domain.
FB: Mr. President, I was hopin you could tell us a little about Harriet Miers's judicial philosophy.
BUSH: Harriet Miers's judicial philosophy is that she's gonna be smart, Fafnir - an' she's not gonna legislate from the bench.
FB: Well that's a relief! I'm tired a these other Justices passin bills an resolutions all the time. Now what's her position on abortion?
BUSH: First off let me tell you that Harriet Miers's position on abortion is a smart one - a real smart one - and that in no way do I know what it is. Also, she will not legislate from the bench.
FB: So will she not-legislate to uphold Roe v Wade or will she not-legislate to overturn Roe v Wade?
BUSH: Well, I can tell you that when Harriet Miers rules on abortion, she's not gonna replace Congress as the supreme legislative body in the nation, that's for sure. She's not even gonna replace the Senate. She might - MIGHT - replace the House Rules Committee. But that's it.
FB: Okay, how about... if Harriet Miers was a first-trimester fetus, and you were a president, would you appoint her to the court if you knew she would let somebody abort herself?
BUSH: Tell ya what. How bout we bring Harriet Miers out here so she can answer you herself?
FB: Hey, that's a great idea!
BUSH: This should just take a minute or two. (GEORGE BUSH exits. After a while, HARRIET MIERS enters.)
FB: Hey there Harriet Miers! We're so glad you could come!
HARRIET MIERS: Great to be here, Fafnir. Always a pleasure.
FB: Now, some people are sayin you're not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. What do you say to that?
MIERS: That's just elitism, Fafnir. Harriet Miers is plenty qualified. Real smart. Friend of the president. Won't legislate from the bench.
FB: Well, first off let me say I'm pretty relieved that you've confirmed reports that you will not legislate from the bench. Movin on, you're a good friend of the president, and on the court you'd have cases where you'd have to rule for him or against him. Do you there could be a conflict of interest there?
MIERS: Well that's just crazy, Fafnir. As a personal friend of the president, I know more about presidents than most people. I have to rule on the president's powers, I can call 'im up and say, "Hey, Mr. President, do you have the constitutional authority to indefinitely detain prisoners without due process?" And he'll say "You bet."
FB: Gee, I never thought about it like that! It's kinda like havin your own personal expert who isn't you.
MIERS: God knows I'm gonna need one.
FB: Waaaait a minute. Mr. President?
GEORGE BUSH: (removing wig) Okay, okay, ya got me. What was it? Was it the dress?
FB: Mr. President, I gotta go.
BUSH: No, wait, we can still do this! You like puppets, right? How bout you ask me questions and Harriet the Hand Puppet here answers 'em!
FB: Mr. President, I got stuff to do.
BUSH: Hey Harriet, can I torture people? "S'alright!" S'alright? "S'alright!"
FB: I got all these socks to wash.
BUSH: Man, I love that one.

10/13/2005 4:26:35 PM

Quote :

"Reality:"

(queue the requisite National Review article)

Quote :

"Miers only became counsel to the president, the top legal job in the White House, in February 2005. Seven months later, she was nominated for a Supreme Court seat"

Uh, yes, and you don't think that speaks awfully well of her?

Charlie Bell started at McDonald's when he was 15 flipping burgers, and he sat on the company's board of directors at 29. Is he an idiot for moving up quickly?

10/14/2005 1:31:11 AM

Quote :

"Uh, yes, and you don't think that speaks awfully well of her? Charlie Bell started at McDonald's when he was 15 flipping burgers, and he sat on the company's board of directors at 29. Is he an idiot for moving up quickly?"

Seriously, Out of curiosity though, may I ask you to please spin this?

Quote :

""She needs more than murder boards," Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview, referring to the mock question-and-answer sessions most nominees use to prepare for their confirmation hearings. "She needs a crash course in constitutional law.""

My crazy and out of the loop interpretation is "she's good in every respect except she knows shit about constitutional law". And I would dare take this elitist and sexist position that knowing shit about constitutional law pretty much disqualifies you from getting on the SCOTUS. What is your take?

10/14/2005 11:23:00 AM

Quote :

"Charlie Bell started at McDonald's when he was 15 flipping burgers, and he sat on the company's board of directors at 29. Is he an idiot for moving up quickly?"

Obviously not. Now, if he sat on the board of directors at 15 and a half, that would be different.

10/14/2005 11:31:51 AM

clearly harriet miers is in her teens

10/14/2005 11:35:08 AM

Clearly that's what I was talking about.

10/14/2005 11:52:37 AM

Quote :

"More talking over the weekend to more conservative lawyers in Washington. It is hard to convey how unanimously they not only reject, but disdain, the choice of Miers. .... Another told me of a briefing session to prepare Miers to enter into her duties as White House Counsel. A panel of lawyers who had served in past Republican White Houses was gathered together. After a couple of hours of questions and answers, all agreed: "We're going to need a really strong deputy." It's been reported the reason Miers was named White House Counsel in the first place was that she had proven incompetent as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. Her boss, Chief of Staff Andy Card, badly wanted to get her out of his office - but couldn't fire her because she was protected by the president and the first lady. So he promoted her instead."

http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/10102005.asp#079027

Of course Im sure its possible that good ole Charlie Bell kept getting promoted because his bosses didnt want to deal with his incompetence as well.

[Edited on October 14, 2005 at 12:37 PM. Reason : ]

10/14/2005 12:34:11 PM

It's apparently impossible for Bush to have made a bad nomination in the Smoker4verse.

[Edited on October 14, 2005 at 12:41 PM. Reason : ...]

10/14/2005 12:40:56 PM

She's a FEMA appointee.

10/14/2005 2:26:42 PM

Quote :

"may I ask you to please spin this"

I don't have to spin it. Look at the source of the quote.

Since we're now using the National Review as an authoritative source on who's smart in Washington:

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/miller200403260926.asp
("The Awful Specter of Yet Another Term" -- run in an issue where National Review put Specter's face on the cover and called him "The Worst Republican Senator")

Keep trying.

Quote :

"Of course Im sure its possible that good ole Charlie Bell kept getting promoted because his bosses didnt want to deal with his incompetence as well."

No, usually companies move people like that into positions with titles but no authority. ie, VPs who have no political power and work on dead-end projects.

Charlie Bell became CEO of the whole company, after he started one of its more successful ventures.

Likewise, clearly Card is smart enough to realize that the last way to get someone out of your hair is to make them the ultimate authority. That's one of the stupidest theories I've heard yet.

Quote :

"It's apparently impossible for Bush to have made a bad nomination in the Smoker4verse."

Apparently you approve of the alternatives -- so you'd rather have a clear Scalia-wannabe?

Or are you sticking your head in the sand and pretending that Bush was going to otherwise specifically nominate a judge that would be acceptable to you?

10/14/2005 8:37:09 PM

[Edited on October 14, 2005 at 8:47 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2005 8:46:53 PM

Quote :

"Smoker4: Apparently you approve of the alternatives -- so you'd rather have a clear Scalia-wannabe?"

I'd rather jam bamboo shoots under my fingernails. I was just musing on how your arguments would apply even if Bush had simply nominated his old HR manager from Arbusto for the job.

Quote :

"Smoker4: Or are you sticking your head in the sand and pretending that Bush was going to otherwise specifically nominate a judge that would be acceptable to you?"

Actually, I resigned myself to shitty nominees the moment Bush won in '04. I think Miers is a terrible nominee for the court, but not the worst he could've done.

Still, I'm rather surprised to see you going into such a quote-bombing frenzy to defend such a mediocre appointment.

10/14/2005 8:47:32 PM

Quote :

"I was just musing on how your arguments would apply even if Bush had simply nominated his old HR manager from Arbusto for the job."

Which of my arguments are you talking about, or did you miss the point in the thread where I said -- repeatedly -- that Miers's legal background is a qualification in itself? I doubt his HR manager was a lawyer with her experience.

My qualm is with the specific requirement of "constitutional scholar."

Quote :

"Still, I'm rather surprised to see you going into such a quote-bombing frenzy to defend such a mediocre appointment."

Well, I clearly don't think she's a mediocre appointment, and I admire the President's gusto in nominating her.

But what I'd like to know, honestly, is: what would you consider to be a _good_ appointment?

10/14/2005 9:05:49 PM

Quote :

"I don't have to spin it. Look at the source of the quote."

The head of the judiciary committee?

Alright, I'm done here. I'm not to interested in arguing in this TGD-style-OMF-I-ll-argue-the-entire-government-is-dysfunctional-to-prove-one-person-isnt.

P.S.

Quote :

"Or are you sticking your head in the sand and pretending that Bush was going to otherwise specifically nominate a judge that would be acceptable to you?"

This btw is the entire line of reasoning altogether. Saying Miers is the best Bush can do isn't equivalent to saying Miers is qualified.

[Edited on October 14, 2005 at 9:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2005 9:51:44 PM

^

Quote :

"The head of the judiciary committee?"

Now wait a second -- you've been citing National Review as an authoritative source on who's smart and qualified in Washington.

Now I'm citing the very same publication, where they say that Arlen Specter has been an untrustworthy, fickle, indecisive jackass on the Judiciary committee. They argue, for example, that he was solely responsible for the Bork episode -- which in their eyes was a cardinal sin.

But because _I'M_ citing them, you're not obliged to listen. Only when YOU cite National Review, does their point of view matter.

I say: Miers is qualified. So you cite National Review and they say she's unqualified. I'm supposed to heed their authority on the matter.

You quote Arlen Specter's opinion on Miers, so I cite National Review, and they say he's unqualified to be on the Judiciary Comittee. But do you take their position to be authoritative then?

No. You say, in effect, that he's the head of the judiciary committee and we have to listen to what he says.

That's an infuriating double-standard of argumentation you're bearing: "I only cite sources when they agree with my position. I get to decide when sources matter."

Simply put: no, you don't.

_I_ am not arguing the dysfunctionality of Specter, NATIONAL REVIEW IS--the SAME PUBLICATION YOU HAVE TAKEN TO BE AUTHORITATIVE IN THIS WHOLE THREAD.

[Edited on October 14, 2005 at 10:41 PM. Reason : foo]

10/14/2005 10:38:15 PM

Quote :

"Saying Miers is the best Bush can do isn't equivalent to saying Miers is qualified."

Yes, but my response to Gamecat was just that -- a response to his specific post. It is NOT to be taken out of the context or the continuity of the rest of this thread.

What, does making a post now automatically nullify all other posts? Am I not allowed to have a whole stance, or is TWW now just sound bytes?

10/14/2005 10:44:06 PM

1. Man, I mean, please! I NEVER said I expected you to take NR's judgements as God's revelations. Unless you wanna say they lie about facts, I don't see what's exactly your point. I use NR as a source trustworthy enough not to question their paraphrase of simple verifiable objective facts. What's your problem with that?

2. Except I was wondering if you had a whole stance. You might have - I just wanted to check that. Because I actually think the position that Miers is the best we'll get may be quite defensible.

10/15/2005 12:10:35 AM

Quote :

"The next time I have meat and mashed potatoes, I think I'll put a very large blob of potatoes on my plate with just a little piece of meat. And if someone asks me why I didn't get more meat, I'll just say, "Oh, you mean this?" and pull out a big piece of meat from inside the blob of potatoes, where I've hidden it. Good magic trick, huh?""

10/15/2005 5:00:49 AM

Quote :

"August 2001: “Thank you so much for letting me bundle up and drag away the brush that you cut down today. And if I might add, Sir, I’ve never seen a man wield the nippers so judiciously. It was awesome! You are the best brush cutter ever!!” April 2002: “I was worried that it could go unstated in the rush of business around here, but I just wanted to pause and say how amazing it is that, after doing so much for the American people already, you keep showing up for work most days. We have to come, but you choose to. You’re the hardest-working president ever!!” October 2002: “I’m not sure Condi has made the time to thank you herself, so I just wanted to say how much we appreciated the tickets to ‘Madame Butterfly’ on Saturday night. I wore my long black robe — I mean, opera cape. I just wish it had had that song from ‘The Sound of Music’ — I know you love it, too — ‘Cream-colored ponies and crisp apple strudels.’ You’re one of my favorite things, sir!” January 2003: “Just a quick note to say how cool it is that you picked Brownie to head FEMA. There’s nothing like having someone you know and trust in a top job. Your gut is the best judge ever!!” April 2004: “There is no other president who would have had the courage to allow torture, dude! (It’s only too bad that Abu Ghraib rules out Alberto’s chances of getting on the Supreme Court.) You are the best torturer ever!! xo, H.” June 2005: “Make sure you take a good, long vacation this summer! Last year, you only took two weeks. You are pushing yourself way too hard, Sir!!” August 2005: “I’ve half a mind to come down there myself and chase that witch, Cindy Sheehan, off your property with an injunction!! Yours, with you in Christ, Harriet.” September 2005: “In all this fuss about that bad-girl buttinsky Katrina, no one else seems to have noticed — not even Karen — that you’ve achieved your bold vision of losing that 7 pounds. That extra week of mountain biking was so much more important than people realize. You’re the most chiseled commander in chief ever, and the most rad guitar player ever!!” October 2005: “How can I thank you, Sir? I never, ever expected the Supreme Court. Phat! I hope Clarence doesn’t make me watch ‘Debbie Does Dallas’ again. That movie is so anti-Texas! I miss you already!! “But now I will be able to serve your interests — and those of your family — forever and ever. If there’s another re-count you need help with, count on me. They say I don’t have experience, but I’ve had the experience of polishing the boots of the wisest ruler since Solomon. I may not know stare decisis, but I know when to be starry-eyed. I await your instructions, Master.”"

10/17/2005 3:32:35 PM

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 in response to that question.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1226193

10/18/2005 12:44:09 PM

yeah she did



SHIT HIT THE FAN, SON

[Edited on October 18, 2005 at 3:35 PM. Reason : fan]

10/18/2005 3:26:52 PM

Quote :

"Miers spent much of Monday on Capitol Hill visiting with senators, among them Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. After their meeting, Specter told reporters that Miers said she believed the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut -- a landmark ruling establishing the right to privacy -- was "rightly decided." But when the White House took exception to Specter's comments, the Pennsylvania Republican released a statement saying Miers later called him to tell him he had "misunderstood" her answer. (Full story) Specter said Miers, in the later phone call, told him she had not taken a position on either Griswold or the right to privacy, the legal underpinning for the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/18/miers/

10/18/2005 4:10:18 PM

btt, in case anyone thinks it is still possible to defend this nominee

10/21/2005 11:38:27 AM

shee cancelled all meetings with senators since the first 2 were total disasters

she will never make it thru the hearings without being a human legal encyclopedia

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 11:51 AM. Reason : =]

10/21/2005 11:51:10 AM

^Uh, source?

From a CNN posting 90 minutes ago:

Quote :

""She's done about 25 visits so far, and she's got about a dozen next week," White House spokesman Jim Dyke said Friday. "We get advice on a regular basis from outside groups. It doesn't mean it's going to happen.""

10/21/2005 2:01:45 PM

Quote :

" And now we're not supposed to trust the President with choosing a justice, even though ... we trust him with nuclear weapons. "

What?

Do you for one minute believe that George W. Bush has the ability to start a nuclear war by himself. This is the stupidest statement I've read in this thread.

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 6:11 PM. Reason : .]

10/21/2005 6:11:34 PM