Bush appoints personal aide TO SUPREME COURT.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Silas, Oct 3, 2005.

  1. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    The Bush administration evidently just does not care for the niceties of democratic uncorrupt government any more. According to the BBC and CNN Mrs Miers is going to be opposed by the Democrats because she might be too conservative. How about how INAPPROPRIATE it is to the President appoint to the Judiciary someone so closely connected to him - and at a political level, too, she helped him during his gubernatorial campaigns!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4304684.stm

    Bush: "For the past five years Harriet Miers has served in critical roles in our nation's government." Does it not occur to anyone that that's actually something that should disbar her from the appointment? Whatever the hell happened to "separation of powers"?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Brandon9000 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    172
    Just because you lost the election is no reason to whine.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    I'm a British person concerned that the United States upholds its own Constitution, the greatest enumeration of democratic government in the history of the world.

    All the comment on this from the Democrat side is solely concerned with whether Miers is pro- or anti-abortion. I don't care if Bush appoints a conservative, I'm concerned that a President is getting away with putting a personal friend and member of his Administration on the Bench in direct contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers. From what I read Miers is an excellent lawyer and fair minded person who would make a very good Judge (though she has never been one). Fair enough. Let her be appointed by the next incumbent. It's not her personal views or personal qualifications for the role that is exercising me, it is the fact that she is closely associated with the President who is attempting to appoint her.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. te jen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    532
    So you are suggesting that anyone who did not vote for the incumbent loses any right to dissent, is that it? Not only that, but loses any right to political action of any kind whatsoever, right?

    That's a subject for another thread, assuming you are even serious. Regarding Miers, however... disregarding her personal position on the hot topics of the day, for Bush to submit her name for consideration to the Supreme Court is so unbelievably stupid as to render me speechless. Where to even start... he must be completely blind and deaf to anybody who advises him - I expect that even his own party is shaking its collective head at the brazen cronyism demonstrated by this pick. John Roberts was an inspired choice - this is just moronic.
     
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    There's nothing legally wrong with Bush appointing a close aid. Separation of powers isn't an issue. I would question the fact that she hasn't been a judge before.
     
  9. mars13 give me liberty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,085
    She Has Never Been A Judge!!!!!!!

    Thats So Mounumentaly Stupid!!!!

    Its Like Making A Fry Cook Head Of All Mc Donalds!!!!!!!


    This Retard Has Got To Go!!!!!
     
  10. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,011
    rhenquist was never a judge before he was appointed either.

    i agree with all of this.
     
  11. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    I don't understand why it would contravene separation of powers, if she is approved, she will no longer work for Bush.
     
  12. tude dog Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    27
    The real problem is he nominated a woman, so now the quota mongers must, in all fairness give Bush's nomination a pass.
    BTW, there never has been a requirement that a justice had been a judge.
     
  13. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Quota mongers? What's that? Giving her special consideration because she's female would be sexist.
     
  14. radicand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    And what is giving special considerations because of race called?
     
  15. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Racism.
     
  16. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    That being said, she seems supremely unqualified.
     
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Maybe she's judged a horse show or something like that. That counts for a lot in this administration.
     
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    This is no longer about political parties, race, sex, or even whether she's been a judge.

    Bush has proven himself to be the most incompetent ELECTED president (to avoid comparisons with Ford) that we've had in my lifetime--and I've endured Johnson, Carter and Reagan. But he is at his most supremely incompetent when choosing appointees. He is no judge of either character or competence. It's downright frightening. This has already been a disaster with FEMA.

    But a Supreme Court justice??? Someone who will serve for the rest of her life? Someone who can't be kicked out by the next president, or shamed out of office by Congress, or even fired by Bush himself? This lady will outlive ME! I will spend the rest of my life under the influence of her judgement!

    I'm sorry, but this is a special case. This man has no qualifications for office except the fact that his daddy has some dangerously powerful friends who have been propping him up, buying his way out of trouble, and propelling him along for his entire life. He is the stupidest man to occupy the White House in decades--possibly forever, again with the exception of Ford. But it's made worse by the fact that he THINKS he's smart, because he's too stupid to understand that he hasn't really accomplished anything, the college degree and the elections have all been expensive machinations of the petroleum cabal. And to top it all off, he's infected with hubris. He thinks he has what it takes to solve the world's problems, when he's too stupid, uneducated, and pig-headed to even understand them.

    No, I don't think he should be allowed to appoint another justice. I think his opponents in Congress should stall this process for three and a half years until his successor takes over. Desperate times call for desperate measures and these are SERIOUSLY desperate times.
     
  19. Tavas Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    31
    We must forgive baby bush, he is afterall running out of yes men/women at an amazing fast pace.
     
  20. te jen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    532
    Turns out Miers may not be a yes woman after all - she apparently is in favor of equal civil rights for gay couples, according to http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/04/miers/index.html.

    Imagine if this nominee had been submitted by a Democrat - this single issue would have brought her down in flames. It will be interesting to see if Bush's base turns on him.
     
  21. te jen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    532

    I agree, which was the theme of this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40174.

    I find it a lot easier to just accept that the US is circling the drain and plan accordingly.
     
  22. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Democracy? Which democracy? Where?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    I am quite disapointed with this nominee. This is just the sort of nominee the Senate approval mechanism was meant to weed out. What are her qualifications? That she's Bush's friend? That she has two X chromosomes? The highest court in the nation with many issues hanging on a 5/4 vote and Bush nominates someone with no track record whatsoever! Screw that. If I had a vote, I'd vote against her. If she manages to get approved, it will be because of votes on the Democrat side. The best thing that could happen for Bush would be some sort of scandal to pop up which would cause him to withdrawl her nomination and give him a "do-over". If she gets approved, the base will be pissed and democrats will have an opportunity to make big gains in the midterm elections.
     

Share This Page