Bob Lablaw Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Nothing in her lack of qualifications should stand in the way of her approval. The President gets to pick, and as long as he doesn't pick a total ninny, the choice should be approved. She's not shown (as yet) that she's incompetent, and unless she does, she should be approved, even if it seems there are much better qualified candidates. That's the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 From CNN.com The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas who had been the president's lawyer," said conservative activist Manuel Miranda of the Third Branch Conference, referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson's pick to the high court in 1965. I am reacting as a lawyer - on teh face of her resume' she is unqualified. There are many brilliant people in this world but that does not make them qualified to be SC justice. For example, Bob Gates is a brilliant man, but unqualified to be a justice. Same with Bush's selection. The Constitution is not something to be cavalier with. This is a rogue pick from a rogue president with questionable judgment. We may be stuck with her for the next 20-30 years. Luckily Abe Fortas resigned when he found he was over his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 For example, Bob Gates is a brilliant man, but unqualified to be a justice. Same with Bush's selection. 463934[/snapback] Would that be this Bob Gates? This Guy's Brilliant?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Would that be this Bob Gates? This Guy's Brilliant?? 463943[/snapback] I meant Mr. William Gates. you just google "bob gates" to get that web site or do you have that listed in your "favorites?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 I meant Mr. William Gates. you just google "bob gates" to get that web site or do you have that listed in your "favorites?" 463946[/snapback] Oh no, that guy is all over my favorites. He sucks as a realtor, but he makes me look handsome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 From CNN.comI am reacting as a lawyer - on teh face of her resume' she is unqualified. There are many brilliant people in this world but that does not make them qualified to be SC justice. For example, Bob Gates is a brilliant man, but unqualified to be a justice. Same with Bush's selection. The Constitution is not something to be cavalier with. This is a rogue pick from a rogue president with questionable judgment. We may be stuck with her for the next 20-30 years. Luckily Abe Fortas resigned when he found he was over his head. 463934[/snapback] 1) Who the heck is Bob Gates? 2) What does the Constitution say about the qualifications of being a justice? 3) Abe Fortas??? I am not an expert on him by any means, but I do know he didnt resign becaues he was in over his head...he resigned due to ethical conduct. Conduct he eventualy went to prison for. Bottom line..learn what you are talking about before you speak (or type). EDIT: Okay, you meant BILL gates...but technically speaking, Bill Gates is no less qualified for the supreme court than John Robers, Sandra Day O'Connor or even you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 1) Who the heck is Bob Gates?2) What does the Constitution say about the qualifications of being a justice? 3) Abe Fortas??? I am not an expert on him by any means, but I do know he didnt resign becaues he was in over his head...he resigned due to ethical conduct. Conduct he eventualy went to prison for. Bottom line..learn what you are talking about before you speak (or type). EDIT: Okay, you meant BILL gates...but technically speaking, Bill Gates is no less qualified for the supreme court than John Robers, Sandra Day O'Connor or even you. 463957[/snapback] Oh, I know ABe Fortas left because of illegal conduct but that does not hide the fact that when he was nominated the whole country said collectively, "huh?" Same with this choice. Is it too much to ask to have the president nominate someone who is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice? Again, I supported Roberts - I thought he was an excellent choice. Lets put it this way - name one thing that makes the current nominee qualified? Her education? - no. Her judicial experience? - no. Her legal experience? - no. Her lengthy work of Constitutional study? - no. How about clerking for the SC or any federal judge? no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Nothing in her lack of qualifications should stand in the way of her approval. The President gets to pick, and as long as he doesn't pick a total ninny, the choice should be approved. She's not shown (as yet) that she's incompetent, and unless she does, she should be approved, even if it seems there are much better qualified candidates. That's the game. 463913[/snapback] Because that was the intent of the Constitution's framers, that the president should get whoever he wants and the Senate has no say in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Lets put it this way - name one thing that makes the current nominee qualified? Her education? - no. Her judicial experience? - no. Her legal experience? - no. Her lengthy work of Constitutional study? - no. How about clerking for the SC or any federal judge? no. Show me where it is written that there ARE requirements to being a supreme court justice. THERE ARE NONE. You dont have to be a judge. You dont have to be a lawyer. You dont even have to be 20 years old or a US Citizen!. All you have to do is be able to convince people that you have the integrity, competence and the judicial temparment necessary for the job (and that isnt even techically a requirement either!) SHE IS QUALIFIED TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Because that was the intent of the Constitution's framers, that the president should get whoever he wants and the Senate has no say in the matter. doh.gif No, they get to "Advise and consent". And from what I understand, she comes highly reccomended. The consent phase will begin shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 From CNN.comI am reacting as a lawyer - on teh face of her resume' she is unqualified. There are many brilliant people in this world but that does not make them qualified to be SC justice. For example, Bob Gates is a brilliant man, but unqualified to be a justice. Same with Bush's selection. The Constitution is not something to be cavalier with. This is a rogue pick from a rogue president with questionable judgment. We may be stuck with her for the next 20-30 years. Luckily Abe Fortas resigned when he found he was over his head. 463934[/snapback] You can say rogue this and rogue that all you want, but if GW nominated her and she was on Harry Reid's suggestion list, she is getting in and there is nothing rogue about it. I'm not saying it is good or bad, but hardly rogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 No, they get to "Advise and consent". And from what I understand, she comes highly reccomended. The consent phase will begin shortly. 463989[/snapback] Sounds like they did "advise". Now we're getting into the "consent" part of the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 The biggest strike against her, again in my opinion, is that she one called Bush "the most brilliant man I have ever met." Do we really want someone with that sort of judgement sitting on the Supreme Court? 463749[/snapback] She must not know many men. Imagine the reaction of the Right if she gets confirmed, and then it was revealed that she's a closet lesbian. It would be priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Hello - Earth to all of you liberal dumbasses - Hello - Bush has pissed off his conservative base with BOTH of his recent nominees. The far right wingers are pissed, but you guys are far too partisan (lefty) to see that. No one is going to overturn R. v W. so go ahead and get over that already. The sooner you libs realize that, and the sooner the Democrats in general do, the sooner we can go about the business of our country. Bush has sent a clear signal that he is going to let you have your beloved abortions. You win. Can we move forward now? Please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 The biggest strike against her, again in my opinion, is that she one called Bush "the most brilliant man I have ever met." Do we really want someone with that sort of judgement sitting on the Supreme Court? 463749[/snapback] He's not as dumb as you think bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 The Constitution is not something to be cavalier with. 463934[/snapback] This is exactly why Roberts and Miers are excellent choices. The people of the US have had enough of liberal judges legislating from the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Show me where it is written that there ARE requirements to being a supreme court justice. THERE ARE NONE. You dont have to be a judge. You dont have to be a lawyer. You dont even have to be 20 years old or a US Citizen!. All you have to do is be able to convince people that you have the integrity, competence and the judicial temparment necessary for the job (and that isnt even techically a requirement either!) SHE IS QUALIFIED TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. 463988[/snapback] Meeting the minimum threshold, like having a pulse, doesn't necessarily make you qualified to be on the highest court in land. If he wanted to pick someone who has never been a judge or isn't a lawyer, fine. But to make this kind of pick, at least choose someone who is at the top of their field in another area. Miers has no qualities, other than being the President's lawyer, that make her worthy of a high court nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Hello - Earth to all of you liberal dumbasses - Hello - Bush has pissed off his conservative base with BOTH of his recent nominees. The far right wingers are pissed, but you guys are far too partisan (lefty) to see that. No one is going to overturn R. v W. so go ahead and get over that already. The sooner you libs realize that, and the sooner the Democrats in general do, the sooner we can go about the business of our country. Bush has sent a clear signal that he is going to let you have your beloved abortions. You win. Can we move forward now? Please? 464173[/snapback] I agree with you that a new apointee will not overturn cases laft and right. Again, my objection does not concern her political agenda. Rather I am concerned with her qualifications. The integrity of the Court is my concern. She is simply not qualified. As of yet, not one of you in the "Bush Cult" have been able to point to one thing from the nominee's background to make her qualified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 I agree with you that a new apointee will not overturn cases laft and right. Again, my objection does not concern her political agenda. Rather I am concerned with her qualifications. The integrity of the Court is my concern. She is simply not qualified. As of yet, not one of you in the "Bush Cult" have been able to point to one thing from the nominee's background to make her qualified. 464265[/snapback] At this point, I don't know whether I am for her or against her. I am curious about your seemingly objective stance that she is not "qualified". What in your view defines a qualification to the supreme court? To me it seems that it takes some real smarts, but that a resume stating Harvard this and Yale that is not automatically required. In summary, the job of the court is to protect the U.S. Constitution from the other two branches of the federal government. Is it really such a complex document and so hard to understand that you need 23 years on the bench to do it? Am I oversimplifying it? If so, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 At this point, I don't know whether I am for her or against her. I am curious about your seemingly objective stance that she is not "qualified". What in your view defines a qualification to the supreme court? To me it seems that it takes some real smarts, but that a resume stating Harvard this and Yale that is not automatically required. In summary, the job of the court is to protect the U.S. Constitution from the other two branches of the federal government. Is it really such a complex document and so hard to understand that you need 23 years on the bench to do it? Am I oversimplifying it? If so, why? 464287[/snapback] The document is simple, the infinite array of human experience to which it is applied is not. Compared to many Justices, it looks like she is a lightweight. Compared to others, she is not so bad. Right now I have little to go on besides her lack of reputation outside of Texas. Lets see how she does in the hearings and withhold judgments until then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts