Does anyone else have a problem with Bush's SC nomination?

[bluegoose]

I know very little of this woman and even less about the finer points of the law and politics. But it seems like someone should probably have at least a little experience before being appointed to the highest court in the land.

BTW - Doesn't this sound just a little too Clinton-esque? "Not to my recollection..." :


"President Bush said Tuesday he has never discussed abortion with White House counsel Harriet Miers, his nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"Not to my recollection have I ever sat down with her [to discuss abortion]," Bush said in his first solo press conference since May."
(source = cnn.com)

[SteelBlue]

Seems like a choice made to have a candidate with no real "paper trail". I too thought it was strange, but heard on NPR yesterday that she would be the 35th person to serve on the SCOTUS without ever having served on the bench.

[SoCalCoug]

I think it's hilarious that he answers the recent charges of cronyism by appointing his personal attorney who has limited experience for such a position.

I really just don't understand what he's doing. It's like he's scared to nominate one of the people the conservatives want him to nominate.

I guarantee the democrats are laughing about this one.

[Archaea]

As I believe he should have nominated somebody conservative with a track trecord, which he believed the Democrats would Bork.

And then have his real candidate in reserve that the Democrats would not have enough energy to Bork.

Bush really isn't a Dem, he's a politician that tries to get done whatever he can.

[SoCalCoug]

I loved Bush's comment about how he knows her and he knows that she's not going to change, that 20 years from now, she'll have the same outlook she has now - because 20 years ago, she was a democrat.

[UtahDan]

And I am one.

On the one hand, we say "whoever the president nominates is entitled to great deference and after all since we elected him it is his perogative to decide who fills that spot."

This of course, unless we don't like or are unsure about who he nominates, in which case we sound just like the democrats.

We aren't happy with his answer of "you have to trust me." Well folks, that was exactly what we decided to do when we voted for him.

I am not jumping to any conlcusions about her at this point and I don't think anyone else should either. Lets here what she says at the hearings, but at the end of the day we may just find outselves in the uncomfortable spot the democrats are in with Roberts, hoping but not knowing.

I personally don't think that a blood bath is what the republican party needs right now, but clearly that has a great deal to do with the dissapointment of many. Ghost of Goldwater.

[bluegoose]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

We aren't happy with his answer of "you have to trust me." Well folks, that was exactly what we decided to do when we voted for him.

I agree in part to what you say.

If I voted for Bush, I also voted for the actions and appointments which I anticipated that he would make while in this term of office. I've got to live with the consequences of my actions - that's fine.

But I am still entitled to question his decisions, just as a major stockholder is entitled to that same privelege of the company in which he/she invests.

Is it too much to ask for someone to have at least a little experience on the bench before rising to the highest court in the land? Seriously, give me anything that has to do with interpreting the law - judge on the high school mock trial team, I don't care.

Every appointment has an attached agenda - I'm curious what we are dealing with here.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

Every appointment has an attached agenda - I'm curious what we are dealing with here.

I'm thinking she has photos of W naked and doing lines.