The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Liberals breathe a sigh. Conservatives are not happy. Bush took this opportunity to appoint none other than one of his own attorneys to the Supreme Court. She has never been a judge and her views are not widely known, however can anyone doubt that she is in concert with Bush's views.

Bush also replaced a woman with a woman. What are your thoughts on this appointment.

It's impossible to determine how a justice will vote on any given issue before appointment. A lot of it is just a crapshoot.

What we know about this woman is that, she's a devout Christian (not too thrilled about this, as her interpretation of the law could be swayed) and she's an avid Bush supporter...

Still, she could be a great friend of Bush but still disagree with some policies. Also, she sure wouldn't be the first Justice to be appointed with no experience as a judge?

Anyway, we won't know for a couple years how this court will shape out... I'm optimistic, it could have been a LOT worse.

The Hogster wrote:Bush also replaced a woman with a woman. What are your thoughts on this appointment.

I think it's great that a woman is being considered for this position. In theory, it's wonderful. However, I don't think that just any woman should be plugged in for that sake alone.

This nomination reeks of something bad to me. I can't put my finger on it but I don't trust this move at all.

The only thing that brings up a read flag to me is that they said she is lawyer without a paper trail. Can that possibly exist in this day and age?

I agree in theory replacing a woman with a woman is good policy but I'd like to believe it'd be ok to replace a position held by a man with a woman, so perhaps following that philisophy it's not the right way to go. Should be the best person for the job, regardless of gender.

He nominated Mike Brown to head FEMA because he was a friend.
He wasn't qualified and that was seen with Hurricane Rita, when he didn't even know what was going on in the convention center at the same time it was being reported in the mainstream media.
Bush told us he did a bang up job.

Now he nominates Harriet Miers, another friend, and tells us to trust him.

I just don't think someone who was a staff secretary as few as 2 years ago, whose job description included checking papers for punctuation errors, is worthy of serving on the highest court in the land.

It pretty much smells like cronyism, and I don't like it.

I think a lot of Republicans are embarrased by the nomination, because nothing good can come of it. There were plenty of qualified people who could be nominated. Bush chose her, and it makes the party look bad.

This is cronyism at its finest. This nomination is nothing more than Bush trying to do give a friend a good position. Its clear that his lame duck status is giving him the urge to thumb his nose at the American people and do things his way.

However, in spite of the fact that this is cronyism at its most extreme, that is not the real issue at hand. What the real issue is whether or not Miers is the absoulute best candidate for the position. Anyone who knows anything about the judicial system in this country should have difficulty in being able to say that Miers is the most qualified person for the job. This is not a Dems vs Reps type of issue, it's a quesion of whether or not the best available candidate was the one nominated. Her credentials, while admirable as a lawyer, show nothing to convince what should be a skeptical American public about her abiliites to serve on the highest court in the Country. If anything, this nomination will come back to bite Bush in the butt. Her ability to act as a Judge on the Supreme Court will be embarrassing to her, her Country, and her friend, President Bush. When she has to write a dissenting opinion against the likes of Antonin Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, et. all she's going up against the big boys, and her inexperience will be painfully obvious. Personally, I have no doubt that her stance on abortion is what got her in there, but I'm quite surprised at Bush for being so bold as to nominate someone who is clearly not the most qualified person for the job, and as such, not the best person for the job.

Thank God that he's not facing re-election, because this allows other Republicans to express their opposition to her nomination without fear of partisan politics coming into play. Even some of his biggest supporters, Trent Lott being one of them, have openly criticised his decision to nominate her for the post, and questioned if in fact she is the best person for the job. There are plenty of people, male, female, black, white, yellow, red, or orange, that are way more qualified than this high priced lawyer.

It's a pity that Bush has taken to thumbing his nose at the American people in his final years in Office. I would have hoped he'd have a little more class than that, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I am glad that there is a female still on the court. I thought he would appoint Janice Rogers Brown, she is from California I believe and she is a staunch, die-hard conservative. He recently appointed her to a federal seat in the US Court of Appeals.

JPFair wrote:This is cronyism at its finest. This nomination is nothing more than Bush trying to do give a friend a good position. Its clear that his lame duck status is giving him the urge to thumb his nose at the American people and do things his way.

However, in spite of the fact that this is cronyism at its most extreme, that is not the real issue at hand. What the real issue is whether or not Miers is the absoulute best candidate for the position. Anyone who knows anything about the judicial system in this country should have difficulty in being able to say that Miers is the most qualified person for the job. This is not a Dems vs Reps type of issue, it's a quesion of whether or not the best available candidate was the one nominated. Her credentials, while admirable as a lawyer, show nothing to convince what should be a skeptical American public about her abiliites to serve on the highest court in the Country. If anything, this nomination will come back to bite Bush in the butt. Her ability to act as a Judge on the Supreme Court will be embarrassing to her, her Country, and her friend, President Bush. When she has to write a dissenting opinion against the likes of Antonin Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, et. all she's going up against the big boys, and her inexperience will be painfully obvious. Personally, I have no doubt that her stance on abortion is what got her in there, but I'm quite surprised at Bush for being so bold as to nominate someone who is clearly not the most qualified person for the job, and as such, not the best person for the job.

Thank God that he's not facing re-election, because this allows other Republicans to express their opposition to her nomination without fear of partisan politics coming into play. Even some of his biggest supporters, Trent Lott being one of them, have openly criticised his decision to nominate her for the post, and questioned if in fact she is the best person for the job. There are plenty of people, male, female, black, white, yellow, red, or orange, that are way more qualified than this high priced lawyer.

It's a pity that Bush has taken to thumbing his nose at the American people in his final years in Office. I would have hoped he'd have a little more class than that, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I couldn't agree more.

She will probably be a key figure in overturning Roe.

Will people PLEASE stop talking about Roe v. Wade? Roe is no longer the current law. It has not been current law since like 1983. Casey v. Planned Parenthood is the latest supreme court ruling on abortion and it made Roe completely irrelevant. It obliterated Roe's trimester framework and instead ruled that abortion was legal, but for different reasons. Mainly they made it a sort of "special" right that doesn't fit under fundemental or non-fundamental rights and they set up their own guidelines...

Anyway, IMO this court appointment could have been a lot worse, and her lack of judicial experience doesn't bother me at all (Rhenquist had no experience as a judge, he was a lawyer/law school professor.) Sure, I don't like it per se but it could have been uglier.

You know, IMO it used to be that Democrats were the ones that basically wanted to move (forward or side to side, depending on your perspective) and the Republicans were the ones who just wanted to preserve the status quo.

Now with the George Bush style Neo-Republican you've got guys who want to move backwards, and take an active part in it.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

But yeah, I can live with this woman being a justice, but if Bill Frist opposes it, she might get voted down. Now wouldn't THAT be something

I wouldn't be surprised at all if this chick doesn't get confirmed. I imagine it's quite rare, but I have a feeling about this one. I think the most important thing that some conservatives are afriad of is that she'll be similar to Souter. Didn't he become much more liberal once he was on the bench? And, Miers, who was once a Democrat, could just as easily change a second time once she gets on the bench. I really think that the conservative backlash over this isn't going to go away. Bush doesn't hold the political clout that he once had, and Republicans aren't going to be as reluctant to vigorously oppose this selection.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Will people PLEASE stop talking about Roe v. Wade? Roe is no longer the current law. It has not been current law since like 1983. Casey v. Planned Parenthood is the latest supreme court ruling on abortion and it made Roe completely irrelevant. It obliterated Roe's trimester framework and instead ruled that abortion was legal, but for different reasons. Mainly they made it a sort of "special" right that doesn't fit under fundemental or non-fundamental rights and they set up their own guidelines...

Anyway, IMO this court appointment could have been a lot worse, and her lack of judicial experience doesn't bother me at all (Rhenquist had no experience as a judge, he was a lawyer/law school professor.) Sure, I don't like it per se but it could have been uglier.

You know, IMO it used to be that Democrats were the ones that basically wanted to move (forward or side to side, depending on your perspective) and the Republicans were the ones who just wanted to preserve the status quo.

Now with the George Bush style Neo-Republican you've got guys who want to move backwards, and take an active part in it.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

But yeah, I can live with this woman being a justice, but if Bill Frist opposes it, she might get voted down. Now wouldn't THAT be something

Actually you are wrong. Casey upheld by a plurality the basic holding of Roe, but replaced the strict trimester formula and analyzed the breadth of state regulatory authority over when women can terminate their pregnancy. Roe established the implicit privacy right that relates to the woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. This is still good law.

Planned Parenthood did not overturn Roe, instead it modified the trimester rubric and relaxed the level of scrutiny given to state regulations on abortion. They introduced the "undue burden" test in Casey. The basic holding in Roe was not overruled, it was reinforced. Casey doesn't even touch the issue of whether there is an implicit Due Process or fundamental privacy right that protects abortion. Casey's holding only touches on the state's ability to regulate abortion.

A case that would overturn Roe would have to rebuff the notion that there is even a constitutionally protected right to terminate pregnancy. Casey didn't come close to doing that. If Roe is overturned, then Casey will be irrelevant, not vice versa.

In short, Roe decided whether an abortion is legal, and when throughout the pregnancy the state outlaw abortion. Casey modified the when issue, but didn't disturb the 'whether' issue. Which is why abortion is still legal in the U.S.

Springtime for Crazyhorse

Latest AP Ipso Poll

Bush's approval rating 39%
Country heading in rignt direction 28%


November, 2006: Democrats win the House & Senate.

January, 2007: 110th Congress begins its work; John Conyers elected Speaker.

February-April, 2007: House Judiciary Committee holds impeachment hearings against Bush & Cheney, votes articles of impeachment.

May, 2007: House upholds articles of impeachment, sends to Senate.

May, 2007: Bush and Cheney on trial by Senate, convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors. JOHN CONYERS BECOMES PRESIDENT OF THE US.

New CBS Poll

Bush approval rating 37%

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha

New CBS Poll

Bush approval rating 37%

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha

Got any other great appointment ideas, dimwit!