Miers withdraws her name for Supreme Court nomination. Source: take your pick.
Whatever viewpoint you have of Miers, Bush, or whatever, this should get even more interesting.
B.J.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
One can only wonder who will be next.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Maybe the twins can jobshare.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Well, the nomination failed because it did not sufficiently please conservatives.
So, the next person will most likely be a very, very conservative person.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, maybe. I mean, from what my very amateur news-watching suggested, Miers was insufficiently conservative not so much because of her positions but because she didn't have any positions. So the bar, as it were, isn't set at "to the right of Miers," but just "somewhere to the right."
Not that I'm presenting this as a reason to be optimistic.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Well, the right-wing wants another Scalia or Thomas.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh, sure. I'm just saying that that's sort of. . . I mean, just that Miers isn't really the issue. I guess?
Also, there's a case to be made for Bush taking the (slightly) moderate road since, while this nominee was rejected by the far right, current approval ratings are way down and choosing a nominee that could sail through Congress with relative ease would conserve capital, as they say.
Again, not that I'm saying that that will be the case.
All things considered, I'd rather have a justice who demonstrated basic competancy and differed from me ideologically (in known ways) than one without a history, or even who was more on my side, as it were, but with no more qualifications to be on the court than I have. There's certainly a long history of justices not deciding along party lines. But I haven't had quite all my idealism crushed yet, so give it a few years.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Shouldn't a Supreme Court Justice be nominated or whatever based on thier knowledge of the law and thier commitment to seeing justice done, and not thier political veiws? That might just be my small town upbringing talking, but isn't that what's important?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, not entirely. It's true that, ideally, a nominee shouldn't be chosen due to being a conservative, or due to being a liberal. However, one cannot ignore the person's political views entirely. If the person is a real hardliner (on one side or the other), they probably won't make a good justice, because their political leanings are likely to influence their decisions.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
As long as ut's not Gonzalez- anyone that thinks the US needs to relax it's policy against tortue is best put in a job where he cant do any damage to the...country....
Like Attorney General.
Yeah. Sooo fucked.
I was reading up on prospective nominees and there are several that are very good choices, - several are qualified, women and not nuts either.
Those will probably not make the "short list" though.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Bush chose Scalito.
And, according to Matt Drudge, calling him "Scalito" makes me a racist. Oh well.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It just makes you quick to jump on cutesy memes.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Bush's pals are none too happy that they refused his "request" to see the confirmation process finished by Christmas break.
Looks like they'll be seriously looking into this nominee's opinions, record and history of judgments. Their job in other words.
He's still no where near an ideal candidate- the NOW is seriously scared he'll overturn Roe Vs Wade and if he's anything like Scallia, the court will become seriously unbalanced towards the right with him on it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If he's anything like Scalia? We're talking about a guy who thinks companies shouldn't have to hire disabled people, and who thinks it's a good idea to strip search ten-year-old girls if their fathers are suspected of wrongdoing. I don't think his right-wing lunacy is in question.
Edit : I almost forgot. He also doesn't think people should be allowed time off work if they have to care for family members.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
God bless Canada. Our politicians may be crooks, but they're not fucked up in the head.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I always thought your politicians were just the quiet "he aways seemed like such a nice guy" kind of fucked up in the head.
Our nuts are just so much more obvious about it.
A real problem I see is that the Supreme Court members/ nominees are (and mostly always have been) so wealthy that thedy cant fathom why anyone would need the protections we are so concerned about.
Coverage for maternity leave? Equal rights for the disabled? Protection from over-zealous cops? None of that applies when you live in a mansion and the law is an abstraction.
Sadly, that's a malady with most of the republican party- they're so much in bed with corperate intrests that the voters mean nothing.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Incidentally, Alito is worth about $600,000 to $1,600,000, not including his house, which is more than I've got (or at current trends more than I'm ever likely to have) to be sure, but is it really a mindbending amount of money? I doubt it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, condsider that his currect position includes a lifetime pension at full pay upon retirment- as does the Supreme Court gig.
That's something over 100K a year forever.
Not exactly a pauper either.
Same cushy deal Congress gets (though you'd be hard pressed to find a non-millionaire among that crowd).
quote:Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's net worth got a major boost last year when a family friend died and left him Exxon Mobil Corp. stock worth between $100,000 and $250,000, according to his 2004 financial disclosure statement.
Just the man to impartially decide weither the federal govenment can override the Florida's ban on offshore oil drilling.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)