Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 17 (permalink) Old 10-27-2005, 07:56 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
firstmb's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 2006 ML350
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism

Shocking.......

__________________________________________________ __

WASHINGTON - Under withering attack from conservatives, President Bush ended his push to put loyalist Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court Thursday and promised a quick replacement. Democrats accused him of bowing to the "radical right wing of the Republican Party."


The White House said Miers had withdrawn her name because of a bipartisan effort in Congress to gain access to internal documents related to her role as counsel to the president. But politics played a larger role: Bush's conservative backers had doubts about her ideological purity, and Democrats had little incentive to help the nominee or the embattled GOP president.

The withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting potential bad news for the administration on another front — the possible indictments of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case. Earlier in the week, the U.S. military death toll in Iraq hit 2,000

President Bush said he reluctantly accepted Miers' decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers — and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

There were few regrets on Capitol Hill, from either party.

Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., told Fox News that the nomination had been a bad idea. "Let's move on," he said. "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers."

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called Miers capable but added, "This clearly was the wrong position for her."

"The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had recommended Miers to the president.


Thanks, D.
________________________________________________


2006 ML 350 - Black, Appearance Package, Navigation System, Entertainment Package, Sunroof Package, Heated Seats, IPod Integration
firstmb is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 17 (permalink) Old 10-27-2005, 08:04 AM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
RE: Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism

Good -- now he can appoint Michael Brown.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #3 of 17 (permalink) Old 10-27-2005, 08:15 AM
BenzWorld Member
 
smurfccoupe's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2003
Vehicle: 2002 C230
Location: Westwood, NJ
Posts: 193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism

Quote:
GermanStar - 10/27/2005 10:04 AM

Good -- now he can appoint Michael Brown.
Who just got a 30-day extension to his "consulting" arrangement, btw. Shameless!

I love it how Bushie appoints an insider, then feigns shock and surprise when people request the work product. The unfortunate thing for Dems is that he will most probably nominate a conservative judge who will be further right of this troll, and they probably won't be able to mount any kind of attack against them now.

2002 Ccoupe, not as good as others, apparently
smurfccoupe is offline  
post #4 of 17 (permalink) Old 10-27-2005, 09:07 AM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1761 Post(s)
RE: Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism

Can't help but wonder whether tomorrow's grand jury ending has something to do with this. Maybe this is an attempt to rally the party before some more shit hits the fan.
Shane is offline  
post #5 of 17 (permalink) Old 10-27-2005, 09:11 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
azimuth's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism

I'm not surprised. I doubt the pres. could or would have the strategic foresight to have planned this as a rope-a-dope move, but it may work to the right's advantage.....pop some popcorn ya'll and wait for the fireworks.

Personally, I'd like to see Janice Rogers Brown get the nod. It would be a difficult task for the lefties to shoot her down. She would be tasty icing on the cake for the conservatives......then they'd just hope for death/retirement from Justice John Stevens and the coup de briguez would be complete.

Too bad the libbies could only muster a corpse for the '04 election[:D]

aborted Shop Forum member

azimuth is offline  
post #6 of 17 (permalink) Old 10-27-2005, 10:03 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism

It would be easy to shoot down Janice Rogers. She is an automatic filibuster, and some less-than-radical right-wingers already have issues with her.

Miers' withdrawl comes as no surprise. Bush is going to need her as counsel with the shit coming down.

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #7 of 17 (permalink) Old 10-27-2005, 10:04 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '01 C320
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism

Why do you want Brown to get the job, Az?
What do you like about her? And please be specific.
I'm curious why you think she would be great for the courts.
That Guy is offline  
post #8 of 17 (permalink) Old 10-27-2005, 10:42 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
azimuth's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism

Posting an article to answer your questions is, in my view, a cop out, but I have to go to a meeting in 10 mins. So here you go




To Democrats, Janice Rogers Brown is the scariest nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the history of the republic. Since her nomination nearly two years ago, she has been the subject of the most vitriolic and persistent attacks ever leveled against a nominee to the federal bench other than Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.




The black sharecropper's daughter, born in segregated Alabama, has been excoriated as a closet member of the Ku Klux Klan who, at least according to the Senate minority leader, would like nothing better than to return America to "Civil War days." Left-leaning political cartoonists depict her as an Aunt Jemima on steroids, complete with exaggerated physical features typically found only in the racist literature distributed by hate groups. She's been called insensitive to the rights of minorities, the plight of the poor, and the difficulties of the disabled. Her opponents warn that she is "the far right's dream judge" and that "(s)he embodies Clarence Thomas's ideological extremism and Antonin Scalia's abrasiveness and right-wing activism." And her opponents are plentiful, a who's who of Left-wing advocacy groups: Planned Parenthood, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, NAACP, NOW, People for the American Way, National Abortion Federation, Feminist Majority, and the American Association of University Women, just to name a few.


SCOTUS on the Mind
What's driving the hysteria? Three things: demographics, abortion (more specifically, the doctrinal approach that produced Roe v. Wade), and impending Supreme Court vacancies.

As Professor Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University Law School has noted, Democrats are determined "not to allow any-more conservative African-Americans, Hispanics, women or Catholics to be groomed for nomination to the High Court with court of appeals appointments." And John Leo observes that abortion politics also is driving the opposition to filibustered nominees like Justice Brown.

As I noted in an earlier piece, pro-life minority nominees represent the perfect storm for Left-leaning opposition groups: non-conformist role models from the Left's most reliable voting blocs who may one day be in a position to reconsider Roe v. Wade. In that regard, Janice Rogers Brown could well be the Storm of the Century: A black female who has been nominated to the court viewed as a springboard to the Supreme Court and who may not view Roe as the zenith of constitutional jurisprudence.

Thomas Sowell adds the kicker: "What really scares the left about Janice Rogers Brown is that she has guts as well as brains. They haven't been able to get her to weaken or to waver. Character assassination is all that the left has left."

Indeed, Justice Brown's intelligence and steadiness are plainly apparent throughout the scores of California-supreme-court opinions she's written over the years. Their lucidity and precision reveal a person unlikely to go searching for penumbras and emanations; someone disciplined in interpreting the nation's laws without resort to European precedent or, as Justice Thomas puts it, "the faddish slogans of the cognoscenti." Put simply, Janice Rogers Brown's copy of the Constitution doesn't have a respiratory system.

Some of Brown's detractors dress up their opposition in legal garb. They contend that she "disregards legal precedent" but fail to cite a single case in which she's overturned existing law. They also allege that she lacks the qualifications to be a judge, ignoring ten stellar years on the California supreme court.

The biggest howler, however, is the claim that Brown "disregards the will of the people as expressed through their legislators." This, despite the fact that she dissented when the California supreme court struck down the will of the people (as expressed through their legislators) requiring parental notification in the case of a minor's abortion. Moreover, Brown wrote the main opinion upholding Prop. 209 — the referendum outlawing racial preferences that was overwhelmingly supported by the people but rabidly opposed by many of the same groups now opposing Brown's nomination. California voters duly punished Brown for disregarding their will by returning her to the supreme court with 76 percent of the vote.


The Substantive Critique
The only charges against Brown meriting serious consideration were posed by Stuart Taylor in a May 2, 2005, National Journal piece in which he examined Brown's nomination and described her as "a passionate advocate of a radical, anti-regulatory vision of judicially enforced property rights far more absolute than can be squared with the Supreme Court precedents with which judges are supposed to comply." (NR's Ramesh Ponnuru has made some similar criticisms.) Taylor's description is largely based upon a review of two speeches given by Brown a few years ago and her dissent in San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco.

Taylor acknowledges that in her confirmation testimony Brown pledged to follow precedent, even when she disagrees with it, but he maintains that Brown has commented favorably on Lochnerism. ("Lochnerism" is a term derived from the 1905 case Lochner v. New York that struck down, on specious 14th Amendment grounds of economic liberty and "freedom of contract," wage and hour and worker-protection laws. Among other things, "Lochnerism" maintains that the state police power shouldn't regulate private commercial transactions. In some ways Lochner is the obverse of Roe). Brown has stated clearly that she doesn't support a return to Lochner.

Taylor cites Brown's San Remo Hotel dissent to suggest that she might invalidate laws that have the effect of redistributing wealth. He argues that such a radically expanded view of judicially protected property rights is simply another form of judicial activism — one that trends toward the libertarian/conservative side of the philosophical spectrum — but activism, nonetheless. To drive the point home, Taylor asks, "How would Republicans react if a Democratic president nominated an advocate of radical redistribution of wealth or Marxism?"

Taylor's critique, the best by far regarding Brown, is thoughtful and substantive, but suffers from at least two infirmities: First, Taylor places too much weight on Brown's speeches. While sentiments expressed in a nominee's speeches may illuminate how that person may behave as a judge, in Brown's case we're not operating with a blank slate. She's compiled an extensive library of opinions while serving on the California supreme court the last ten years. That record reveals a judge committed to steadfast adherence to precedent and textual interpretation. There's nothing in her opinions, including that in San Remo Hotel, outside of the legal mainstream. Critics who charge that Brown might give in to Lochnerian impulses if she were elevated to a United States Supreme Court unchecked by appellate review should consider that her position on the California supreme court provided numerous opportunities to be a judicial activist, yet she took advantage of none of those opportunities. Besides, if one's philosophical meanderings and musings in speeches, debates, or lectures are presumptive of how such nominee will rule as a judge, 90 percent of those who've ever taught a law-school class, given a luncheon address, or participated in an ABA panel discussion would be disqualified. Only the intellectually incurious would remain.

Second, Taylor's reading of Brown's San Remo Hotel dissent finds an urge to radically expand property rights where others find an unremarkable interpretation of the California constitution's comparatively broad takings clause.

San Remo Hotel involved San Francisco's hotel-conversion ordinance that requires owners of hotels that serve the poor, elderly, and disabled to pay a substantial fee to the city whenever the owners seek to convert their property to tourist use. The fee, amounting to 80 percent of the construction costs of the units to be converted, would be paid into the city's Residential Hotel Preservation Fund for the poor. Taylor suggests that Brown's dissent from the majority opinion upholding the law indicates she "would invalidate laws redistributing wealth from one group to another." Obviously, such invalidation could affect much New Deal and Great Society legislation, including Social Security and Medicare.

But Brown's dissent is not nearly so expansive. Rather, it's wholly consistent with mainstream (although, admittedly, libertarian-leaning) jurisprudence that holds that broad societal burdens may not encumber the property rights of a discrete or insular class of individuals. Moreover, Brown was referring only to laws pertaining to real property rights, not legislation that may otherwise have the effect of redistributing wealth (Social Security, etc.).

Janice Rogers Brown is no extremist. She's tough, smart, principled, and conservative. She's the embodiment of everything that challenges the worldview of liberal elites. Teamed with a Justice Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court, she would threaten the Democrat political imperatives cited by Professor Calabresi. Teamed with justices that don't embrace the doctrines of a "living, breathing constitution," she would threaten the political imperatives cited by John Leo.

Two sitting Supreme Court justices are in their 80s; two are in their 70s. Retirement naturally beckons. There could be as many as four high-Court vacancies in the next few years. Nuclear winter fast approaches the Left.

— Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. These comments do not necessarily reflect the position of the Commission.

* * *


aborted Shop Forum member

azimuth is offline  
post #9 of 17 (permalink) Old 10-27-2005, 11:31 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism

Nice. The next candidate will be an extremist, brought to the court under pressure from the Fascist wing of the Republican Party, and the entire public, sick to death of these bastards, is going to know it. It's gonna be Filibuster time!

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #10 of 17 (permalink) Old 10-27-2005, 12:06 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '01 C320
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism

Quote:
azimuth - 10/27/2005 12:42 PM

Posting an article to answer your questions is, in my view, a cop out, but I have to go to a meeting in 10 mins. So here you go
Yes it IS a cop out, but I can relate to time pressure. So from what I can gather from this article, you like her because she is pro life, scares democrats, and is a proponent of property rights? Its tough to tell what she is all about when the article you chose only defends her from criticisms instead of laying out what she is for.

Besides I think its stupid when people get all lathered up about the dems are scared of her/him/whoever. Why does that make you happy? Do you think its a good idea for parties to make choices based on how ticked off their opponents will be because of them? Is that how you think this country should be governed? I personally can't think of a more childish approach. Shouldn't choices be made for the good of the country regardless of who likes it or hates it?

That Guy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome