TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Harriet Miers Withdraws
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Harriet Miers Withdraws

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/...ons/index.html

This just doesn't surprise me at all. There was no way she was going to get confirmed, so why go through the long and drawn out process, getting grilled mercilessly?
post #2 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/...ons/index.html

This just doesn't surprise me at all. There was no way she was going to get confirmed, so why go through the long and drawn out process, getting grilled mercilessly?
I'm with you...Bush was getting grilled for cronyism before he made the decision to get Miers involved. It was a bad move on his part and a bad move on hers (as an advisor) to accept. She's just not qualified. Conservative or liberal, strict or loose constructionist...I want my supreme court justices to be brilliant, experienced and have a viable paper trail. Miers just didn't have that. And the media had torn her to shreads already.
post #3 of 18
While I think it is the best thing she could have done, I was still quite surprised when I heard this morning that she had withdrawn. Of course now I am scared again about who Bush might select. Let's hope for a moderate!
post #4 of 18
G-g-g-g-g-g-g-oooooodbye!
post #5 of 18
I doubt I would agree with her on many issues but it strikes me that no man who had been nominated with the same credentials has been given the rough treatment that Harriet Miers had. I forget who said it but one Democrat said the fact the right wing of the GOP were opposed to her made er take a 2nd look at Ms. Miers. I too wonder now who the candidate will be. Hopefully a woman at least!!
post #6 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberKitten
I doubt I would agree with her on many issues but it strikes me that no man who had been nominated with the same credentials has been given the rough treatment that Harriet Miers had. I forget who said it but one Democrat said the fact the right wing of the GOP were opposed to her made er take a 2nd look at Ms. Miers. I too wonder now who the candidate will be. Hopefully a woman at least!!
Well, I was surprised - I'd figured that she/GWB didn't really care about all the criticism. But I did wonder how she was gonna do it - with no experience and all.

The only bad thing about this is that I wonder too who will be next for nomination - It will either be another moderate or someone who panders to the far right. If it is the latter, that would trouble me! We'll have to see...
I worry about it being a woman who is ultra-conservative, because she would really have to be a hard-liner to be accepted by the far right.

Anyway, as far as these hearings and all - the nominees don't really seem to answer anything they are asked anyway. I had to turn off the J. Roberts hearings, not because I necessarily disagreed with him, but because I couldn't stand all the circumlocution!
post #7 of 18
I always had a problem with the "Trust me, she's good" and I think everyone else did. There wasn't enough to understand how she works, what she has thought. What little we got was contradictory.

The main reason of the withdrawl is because the only way to get her any farther in the process would mean exposing the Executive branch's way of doing business. And that is one thing Bush will not absolute tolerate. He wants to work in complete secrecy which has always made me nervous.

Roberts' views were more controversial but he had enough of a track record of how he would behave as a jurist so people understood him better.
post #8 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig
I always had a problem with the "Trust me, she's good" and I think everyone else did. There wasn't enough to understand how she works, what she has thought. What little we got was contradictory.

That always interested me too...."Trust me, shes good", yet they wouldnt let us get to know her....very strange
post #9 of 18
Thread Starter 
I heard on FoxNews today that the meetings with the Senators were not going well. Even some aides of GOP Senators who sat in on the meetings said that when she was silent through most of it, and when she did answer questions sometimes she was so quiet they couldn't hear her. And the answers were either "Constitutional cliches or the Administration's line". So basically, the ones who they needed to support her couldn't even get their questions answered as to her basic philosophy on the Constitution. There was absolutely no way of knowing how she would rule according to the LAW, just Bush's word that she was Conservative.

One thing I will say about the Committee hearings, they are as much for the opposing side to show what they want and what they are about as anything else. I watched some of the hearings, and I got frustrated at the 10 minute diatribes from the Senators only to ask Roberts a simple question. And the opposing party (I'm sure the GOP did it to Ginsberg) will purposely ask questions that they KNOW the nominee can't answer to make it look like they are stonewalling. How many times was Roe v. Wade asked about? About a million times, I think, and they can't answer how they would rule on a potential future case. And everyone knows that, but they ask anyway.
post #10 of 18
It seems to be the consensus here that she was a bad choice. As it is my opinion also. But I wonder about Pres. Bush. Is he really that stupid? He may be on many things, but he's always been a fairly savvy politician. I'm wondering if her choice wasn't intentional....knowing that she couldn't be confirmed....just throwing a sacraficial lamb to the wolves in order to give both sides a chance to unite and vent their opposition to her, so that his real choice would have a smoother confirmation?

Hmmmmm.....how about it?
post #11 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster
It seems to be the consensus here that she was a bad choice. As it is my opinion also. But I wonder about Pres. Bush. Is he really that stupid? He may be on many things, but he's always been a fairly savvy politician. I'm wondering if her choice wasn't intentional....knowing that she couldn't be confirmed....just throwing a sacraficial lamb to the wolves in order to give both sides a chance to unite and vent their opposition to her, so that his real choice would have a smoother confirmation?

Hmmmmm.....how about it?
Tim, I guess we're both of the same mind. I've had that thought as well. Roberts' confirmation almost went too smoothly, with no big muscle flex from either side - which made some people rather upset that they couldn't flex their muscles.
post #12 of 18
Tim and heidi you make some very intriguing and errie points....I will have to think about that
post #13 of 18
Well I'm glad she was smart enough to step down before the confirmation process went any further. Color Dubyah's face red for nominating her in the first place.
On Wisconsin Public radio yesterday-one of the newsreporters tossed out Diane Sykes name as a possilbe replacement-she was recently appointed to the (7th?) district court of appeals in Chicago. I do hope another better qualified women is chosen.
post #14 of 18
I heard Democratic Senator Charles Schumer talking this morning on TV.
He said the The Supreme Court Justices THEMSELVES told Harry Ried that they wanted the Sandra Day O'Connor replacement to NOT, I repeat NOT be a judge.
I heard this with my own ears out of Schumer's mouth.
So that kind of nips in the bud any complaining about the potential candidates not being a judge as far as I am concerned anyway.
post #15 of 18
Good she was never qualified for the job anyway.
post #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Tim, I guess we're both of the same mind. I've had that thought as well. Roberts' confirmation almost went too smoothly, with no big muscle flex from either side - which made some people rather upset that they couldn't flex their muscles.
I had the same thoughts. It was so obvious that she wasn't qualified for the job that I wondered why her name was offered at all.

I want to see a swing voter on the court. They are representing the entire nation and shouldn't align to one party or the other. It makes the legal system politically biased which is against the checks and balances the founding fathers tried to implement for our nation.

With the Libby scandal brewing, it will be interesting what the next pick will be. Bush lost a lot of support today and I'm wondering if he will go moderate for politics sake.
post #17 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
He said the The Supreme Court Justices THEMSELVES told Harry Ried that they wanted the Sandra Day O'Connor replacement to NOT, I repeat NOT be a judge.
My own opinion is that the nominee should be an experienced judge, but even so, Miers is such a Bush insider. Can't he find someone who's still a conservative constitutionalist who ISN'T one of his pals?
post #18 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster
My own opinion is that the nominee should be an experienced judge, but even so, Miers is such a Bush insider. Can't he find someone who's still a conservative constitutionalist who ISN'T one of his pals?
It made me wonder why SCOTUS wanted a non-judge for the next justice.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Harriet Miers Withdraws