Don't worry Rex, I'm sure once the Enquirer is through with her she won't stand a chance. Maybe Dan Rather can help with the story since he's got a little extra time on his hands these days.
Not this pick. I didn't challenge the Roberts nomination. Sure he's a conservative, but doesn't appear to be a neo-con ideologue. It was Bush trying to appoint a conservative that was still acceptably impartial and clearly qualified for the office. We we're not going to get much better from Bush than Roberts and I find him acceptable, as did most other moderates. But this pick is shaping up early as a political ideologue with meager qualifications. Its a little early to be defending this woman, don't you think, considering the recent failure of the poorly-quaified political crony at FEMA? Especially if you use the same professional judicial criteria held up as indisputable when Roberts was nominated. She will get no support from the left, not much from the middle, and not universally from the right. There are other conservative judges who have their champions in Congress.
But, that's the point. Bush could have selected a sitting judge who is a mirror image of Scalia and Thomas and the Dems would be all over him for it and spoiling for a huge fight. In Miers, he picked someone who is a conservative and perhaps "acceptably impartial". You are holding the fact that she's a friend of Bush against her, but, my friend, you are old and wise enough to know that that's just the way it is. If I had a close personal friend in the White House, I'd damn sure expect him to consider me if I wanted a position there. I certainly wouldn't expect him to rule me out for that reason. I'm not defending her. I just pointed out that Bush could have gone another way and set off a volcano eruption among the liberal left in Washington. Thus far, they seem to be taking a wait and see position.
The comparisons between FEMA and this nomination are tenuous at best. That guy wasn't qualified AT ALL for the job, whereas this nominee has been an attorney for over 30 years. Sure, not having experience as a judge is a knock on her, but it's far from a disqualifier like in the FEMA situation. Nevertheless, the hearings (and any other developing news) will be more illuminating in allowing people to get a more accurate representation of Ms. Miers.
why shouldnt bush make the pick based on who he thinks sees things the same way he does? why care about "impartiality"? who even knows what that is in this context? there is wrong and right and everyone has a version of it. why shouldnt bush pick the person most likely to agree with his interpretation of the constitution? doesnt he think he is right? i hear this "replace a moderate with a moderate with a moderate, replace a conservative with a conservative" all the time. why? i dont like moderation for the sake of moderation. if you believe what you say, go with it. i would pick a justice based on the extent to which he/she agrees with me. i would not hold it against politician who did the same. i know would pick a small government atheist every time.
Because it is a lifetime appointment and she would be here for decades after Bush is gone, perhaps still stepping to his political drumbeat rather than being judicially unbiased. Impartiality, in this case, is a balanced viewpoint, not permanently skewed to the right or the left, so as to assess matters from a proper perspective. Because the president represents ALL of the people, not just the 51 percent that elected him. He must avoid a fight with a split Congress whose cosntituency also include the 49 percent. The best way is to chose a candidate that represents Bush's position but balances that with recognition that ALL of the people must be considered. It will be hard for Miers to be perceived as nonpartisan with such close personal ties to Bush.
unbiased according to you. according to me, there is no such thing as unbiased. and that is fine. proper according to you. you say that as if there is some magical middle of rightness. all there really is is opinions, some of which lie arbitrarily in between the mainstream political extremes enough for you to champion them becuause according to you the center rules. i think people often like to use the word "impartial" to mean "agrees with me" (i am not saying you are). when you say a "balanced viewpoint", that is meaningless to me. you are still assuming the same thing i always accuse you of, that somehow the middle is correct because it is not the extremes. i always get the impression that if our two main political parties were hardcore nazi and less hardcre nazi, you would make an effort to be nazi to the extent that would place you directly between the others and then claim that was moderate and impartial and therefore somehow worthwhile. if i was him i would do what i thought was best, not what my people thought was best. people are stupid. i want a leader to lead. not represent the stupider elements of society (according to him). i wouldnt fault a liberal for appointing liberal justices. i just dont understand why you would want to promote anything but your opinion. especially not if the alternative was the middle i have described so many times more arbitrary than noble and impartial.
Himself?! LMAO!:hihi: One need not be in an equal or greater position to criticize. You're telling us that you never took a wiseass shot at Clinton?
Get ready for some interesting bedfellows...Pat Buchanon isn't pleased! JUST A PART of the editorial...pretty good read, whether you agree or not... http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9444
Apparently it's blasphemy to criticize SabanFan's god. Sorry, SabanFan, I don't worship other men as you do.
