• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Bush's completely opaque SC nominee

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Bush's completely opaque SC nominee

Unread post

Bush's nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner has never been a judge, making it all but impossible to track her career in terms of ideological choices. She's Harriet Miers, and her most recent career has been as Bush's personal legal counsel. But if we're unable to examine the decisions she's made in the past, how are we to know whether or not she's unlikely, as Bush claims, to "legislate from the bench"? Or maybe that's the point.www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/politics/pol ... cotus.html
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17007
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3503 times
Been thanked: 1307 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Bush's completely opaque SC nominee

Unread post

I agree.
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Bush's completely opaque SC nominee

Unread post

I really do not understand how anyone who has not been a judge can be allowed to sit on the highest court. Whether it is 'legal' or not, it makes no sense to me personally...Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17007
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3503 times
Been thanked: 1307 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Bush's completely opaque SC nominee

Unread post

I'm perplexed too. One of us (Nick) should research this and make a post on how something so moronic could be allowed.
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Bush's completely opaque SC nominee

Unread post

Are you volunteering my services!?I will see what I can come across...but it is simple I think...nothing in the Constitution forbids it.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17007
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3503 times
Been thanked: 1307 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Bush's completely opaque SC nominee

Unread post

Jesus. Then they need to fix that problem pronto. How the hell can you be on the Supreme Court without having first paid your dues in the lower courts???
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Bush's completely opaque SC nominee

Unread post

Yes...and as the wonderful Scalia says...the Constitution is a dead document...so it looks like we are stuck with this kind of situation forever! Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Bush's completely opaque SC nominee

Unread post

From Wikipedia:Quote:The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court. However, Presidents normally nominate individuals who have prior legal experience. Typically, most nominees have previous judicial experience, either at the federal or state level. Several nominees have formerly served on federal Courts of Appeals, especially the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Another source of Supreme Court nominees is the federal executive branch
Swamy Maximus

Re: Bush's completely opaque SC nominee

Unread post

She was a pathetic choice, but not because she's never been a judge.
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Bush's completely opaque SC nominee

Unread post

From what I've been told -- and I'll leave it to someone else to confirm or disconfirm the rumor -- Renguist never served as a judge prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, so this isn't without precedent.And no, lack of prior experience as a judge does not make her a bad candidate. I brought it up only because the fact that she has served as a corperate and personal lawyer rather than as a judge makes it difficult to estimate whether or not she's a worthwhile candidate because there is no pattern of decisions to judge. And it seems to me that, given Bush's history of appointments, the lack of a pattern may be one of the aspects of her career that made her attractive as a candidate. It's a way to stack the deck in his favor, and because no one knows her political leanings, there aren't many grounds on which to object.
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”