"pit bull in size six shoes"
Isn't there a minimum shoe size requirement for supremecourtjustices?
Myers is ringing all kinds of bells from my Dallas years but nothing's surfaced yet. She kept a low profile at the White House but was right in there making all the bad decisions about torture, etc. Roberts is terrible--shame on Leahy, Feingold and others for not following the majority leader Reid on him. Their little shows of manly independence will cost us all. The Dems should have filibustered him.
Hey, she was on the Dallas city council at one time. If that's not qualification, then what is?
Maybe that's what it was. I was thinking she was a county judge but she has no judicial experience.
Are you implying that she should have judicial experience to be on the supreme court?
She must be delighted at the prospect of getting away from Bush, her sycophantic pronouncements about him notwithstanding. Protecting him from bad news all day on pain of seeing him explode must be hell.
But if Digby's right and she follows the Abe Fortas model, Bush will still be sending her White House paperwork to review while she's on the bench.
One thing's for sure, that changing the subject power Bush has sure works. Everyone's talking about Miers, forcing Iraq, New Orleans, Rove, and Delay to the back seat. Can't we multitask?
And as for kidney stones, a condition Rove is suffering--I've had'em and they're painful as hell. The difference is I didn't deserve them.
The WSJ had a scathing op-ed titled "Cronyism", quoting from Hamilton that a key role of senate confirmation was to prevent it. I can transcribe a bit if there's interest.
please
first installment ...
Cronyism
By Randy E. Barnett (Boston University)
During the Clinton impeachment imbroglio, Alexander Hamilton's derinition of "impeachable offense" from Federalist No. 65 was plastered from one end of the media to the other. [Don't recall this, not even one bit. I think the focus was on jism, not the Federalist Papers.] With the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, get ready for another passage from Hamilton to get similar play -- this one from Federalist No. 76:
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of the concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity ... He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure." (Emphasis added by Barnett.)
play of the week - are we convinced by the conservative opposition? its posturing so the dems say if they dont like her we do? then she gets in? so the dem plan is just watch and wait see how bad a whomping she gets from the right. if she doesnt get repug approval bush will just nominate someone more conservative? and that would be worse. this is a weird one.
|
- bill 10-03-2005 6:04 pm
Isn't there a minimum shoe size requirement for supremecourtjustices?
- jimlouis 10-03-2005 11:10 pm [add a comment]
Myers is ringing all kinds of bells from my Dallas years but nothing's surfaced yet. She kept a low profile at the White House but was right in there making all the bad decisions about torture, etc. Roberts is terrible--shame on Leahy, Feingold and others for not following the majority leader Reid on him. Their little shows of manly independence will cost us all. The Dems should have filibustered him.
- tom moody 10-03-2005 11:19 pm [add a comment]
Hey, she was on the Dallas city council at one time. If that's not qualification, then what is?
- mark 10-03-2005 11:42 pm [add a comment]
Maybe that's what it was. I was thinking she was a county judge but she has no judicial experience.
- tom moody 10-04-2005 1:14 am [add a comment]
Are you implying that she should have judicial experience to be on the supreme court?
- jimlouis 10-04-2005 1:19 am [add a comment]
She must be delighted at the prospect of getting away from Bush, her sycophantic pronouncements about him notwithstanding. Protecting him from bad news all day on pain of seeing him explode must be hell.
- tom moody 10-04-2005 1:55 am [add a comment]
But if Digby's right and she follows the Abe Fortas model, Bush will still be sending her White House paperwork to review while she's on the bench.
One thing's for sure, that changing the subject power Bush has sure works. Everyone's talking about Miers, forcing Iraq, New Orleans, Rove, and Delay to the back seat. Can't we multitask?
And as for kidney stones, a condition Rove is suffering--I've had'em and they're painful as hell. The difference is I didn't deserve them.
- tom moody 10-05-2005 10:36 am [add a comment]
The WSJ had a scathing op-ed titled "Cronyism", quoting from Hamilton that a key role of senate confirmation was to prevent it. I can transcribe a bit if there's interest.
- mark 10-05-2005 12:36 pm [add a comment]
please
- bill 10-05-2005 1:19 pm [add a comment]
first installment ...
Cronyism
By Randy E. Barnett (Boston University)
During the Clinton impeachment imbroglio, Alexander Hamilton's derinition of "impeachable offense" from Federalist No. 65 was plastered from one end of the media to the other. [Don't recall this, not even one bit. I think the focus was on jism, not the Federalist Papers.] With the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, get ready for another passage from Hamilton to get similar play -- this one from Federalist No. 76:
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of the concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity ... He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure." (Emphasis added by Barnett.)
- mark 10-07-2005 4:13 am [add a comment]
play of the week - are we convinced by the conservative opposition? its posturing so the dems say if they dont like her we do? then she gets in? so the dem plan is just watch and wait see how bad a whomping she gets from the right. if she doesnt get repug approval bush will just nominate someone more conservative? and that would be worse. this is a weird one.
- bill 10-08-2005 12:45 am [add a comment]