Meirs Defeated??
 

Tonight, I was watching the Mclaughlin Group. and much of the discussion centered on the Meirs Nomination to the supreme court. They seemed to be facing the same question I considered when I first heard of the nomination TO WIT: Wouldn't it be interesting if the Republican Party would trurn thumbs down on the President"s pick??? According to them, a large portion of the Republican Guard are opposed. I wonder what will happen:.

1. Will she withdraw of her own volution?
2. Will she be withdrawn by the President?
3. Will her nbomination be defeated?
4. Will she be confirmed?
5. What would you like to happen, and why??

I want her to be defeated. Appointing unqualified people is a liberal shtick. It's sad to see a supposedly Republican President doing all the things LBJ did.

I would prefer to see her nomination defeated.

According to the latest from the White House, her most important qualifications are that she is an evangelical Christian.

I would prefer someone who primarily has legal qualifications for the post of Supreme Court judge!

I can agree with you. I don't want her taking the Supreme Court seat because she just doesn't qualify. Her religious background shouldn't have any bearing because she shouldn't decide trails by faith, but by making sure whatever is made upholds the constitution.

But I feel a bit worried that there is some winking and nodding going on behind the scenes between religious leaders and politicians. That shouldn't be happening at all.

Why is it when a Jew, an Episcopalian, or even a Catholic is nominated, religion is a non-issue. But, when an Evangelical (basically, protestant from a relatively young denomination) is nominated, suddenly religion is a problem? Hello! There are JEWS on the Supreme Court! If religion a problem, the Court is already fjewked.

Doesn't she have a degree in law of some sort?

It isn't like prior service as a judge means a damn anyway. Have you seen some of these judges lately?

Define qualified?

UNQUALIFIED?????-?????-???? How do you get to be unqualified to be a judge. Each of us are a judge every day. Sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. In Meirs' Case, She is a highly successful attorney. So she should know her way arround the judicial system. how does that make her unqualified???

I find this all so damn amusing. Rightwing ideologues find a way to put the most intellectually bereft man in the White House to do their bidding, and they're shocked when he instinctively seeks his own level in chosing Miers. Every time I think about it...makes me laugh out loud.

What are they so worried about. Clarence Thomas is no genius, and he's a committed soldier for their fascist conservative movement.

It's like a soap opera;

Will Harriet become born again, again, or deborn again herself to a Catholic?

Will Harriet withdraw to save George from the wrath of the Wingnuts?

Will George stubbornly stand by her side?

Will Harriet save George by insisting to step aside?

Will George seek revenge on the Wingnuts for making fun of Harriet?

Will she still love him tomorrowhttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/biggrin.gif http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/biggrin.gif http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/biggrin.gif

You're right that Thomas is a dumb negro. But, he's the least fascist on the court. Of course, to a liberal, truth doesn't matter. When Thomas votes against oppressivel government time and time again, to you, that's fascism. To a liberal, freedom is being bound by chains. If Thomas were a true fascist, you'd be praising his intellect.

Define qualified?


A judge, a law professor, or a proven constitutional scholar.

I've seen no evidence that Miers knows the Constitution, and there is a long history of non-judges being appointed who ignore the Constitution when making rulings. Some judges are like that too, to be sure, but you're more likely to get Constitutional rulings with judges than with lawyers or politicians.

STRANGE, VERY STRANGE, There have been many responses to this post, but NOT ONE has ventured a guess as to what will happen. Cluck, cluck, cluck. You know, people are allowed to be wrong. As for myself, I think she will be confirmed. I'm not sure that will be best, but I am leaning in that direction

I really do not understand why conservatives are against her so much. It must be because she is 60 and not married which means she either didn't use the tools "god" gave her, she is a lesbian, or she is a slut. That is what Bill Maher suggested and it is the best I can come up with.

That's silly.

Ben

No, I dont think that's it, but leave up to Maher to say that, lol.
I think its because she isn't conservative enough. She isn't Scalia or Thomas in a dress and she isn't Pat Robertson. She isn't what they were promised...or at least that's the gist of what I am reading and hearing. Maybe I just need to stop reading Ann Coulter..http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/confused.gif

Until conservatives give a reasonable explination then that is the best thing I have heard.

Bush is pretty much promising that she will be very conservative. Hell, she jumped from being a Catholic to being born again into a evangelical church.

Yes, but didnt he also say she wouldnt change on things? Well she changed on that - has been connected to support gay causes (or claiming to) and donated to the democrats, even if it was a small amount. She has no paper trail and she really has no proof that she is going to be a hellfire and brim stone conservative. too many questions for people to be comfortable i suppose.

another thing I will assume is Bush shouldnt have to promise she is going to be very conservative. Her record should speak for her..but she really doesnt have one, lol.
To be honest this whole thing is kinda boring to me. I have just enjoyed watching Coulter squirm. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

I just don't like this. Ugh... cronyism.

Ben

But this isn't the first time he did this sort of things with those who have been loyal to him. Why is it such a big deal now to people who never really cared before?