Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on Supreme Court - GoFuckYourself.com

mardigras · 10-03-2005, 04:50 AM

To be officially announced in about an hour.

mardigras · 10-03-2005, 04:52 AM

Who Is Harriet Miers?

mardigras · 10-03-2005, 05:02 AM

He's announcing it now. The other report was wrong about being an hour from now.

sweetcuties · 10-03-2005, 05:05 AM

Watching... she has no record or stand on major issues

Lycanthrope · 10-03-2005, 05:07 AM

So... someone who has never served as a judge, anywhere, ever, is now a slated to be a member of the highest court in the land?

mardigras · 10-03-2005, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetcuties

Watching... she has no record or stand on major issues

Bush doesn't appoint based on qualifications or any of that mumbo jumbo

mardigras · 10-03-2005, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

So... someone who has never served as a judge, anywhere, ever, is now a slated to be a member of the highest court in the land?

One of the perks of being a close associate of the president

pr0 · 10-03-2005, 06:14 AM

For those who just skim

"Born and raised in Dallas, Miers, 60, earned an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a law degree from Southern Methodist University"

Rebecca Love · 10-03-2005, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0

For those who just skim

"Born and raised in Dallas, Miers, 60, earned an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a law degree from Southern Methodist University"

rut roh! There goes the neighborhood.....

pradaboy · 10-03-2005, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

Bush doesn't appoint based on qualifications or any of that mumbo jumbo

Nah that'd just be plain silly!

Just wrote an article about her, she always stood by his side on every topic. Tax cuts, limiting embryonic stem cell research, national security, fighting terrorism. Looks like another conservative to make the Supreme Court tilt way to the right.

12clicks · 10-03-2005, 06:31 AM

the uninformed already chirping?

Ray Nagin · 10-03-2005, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

So... someone who has never served as a judge, anywhere, ever, is now a slated to be a member of the highest court in the land?

make that two someones, the one in charge ? mr roberts , the other new guy ? experience as a judge ? I think not

TexasDreams · 10-03-2005, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

To be officially announced in about an hour.

WOW!!! Didn't see that one coming. I actually know her from working with her brothers Harris and Jeb, in the mainstream world. She's VERY level headed and intelligent and probably will do a wonderful job.

Ray Nagin · 10-03-2005, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasDreams

WOW!!! Didn't see that one coming. I actually know her from working with her brothers Harris and Jeb, in the mainstream world. She's VERY level headed and intelligent and probably will do a wonderful job.

being level headed and intelligent IMHO is not a qualifaction for judge on the supreme court

actually having been a judge for at least 10 years should be MANDATORY

starting your judge career in the highest office seems something you would see in Zaire in the sixties, but not nowadays in the US ,

Manga1 · 10-03-2005, 06:58 AM

"Miers, who has never been married and does not have any children"

Interesting choice for a President who keeps talking about family values.

ChefJeff · 10-03-2005, 07:00 AM

She's never been a judge. Only a dumb fuck like Bush would appoint someone who has never been a judge to the Supreme Court!

Surely she won't get approved?

selena · 10-03-2005, 07:04 AM

Um...I don't get it.

I read the article on ccn, and I still don't get it.

If you get hired in as an assistant manager at McDonald's, chances are you have been an assistant manager somewhere else.

But you can sit on the Supreme Court and never have been a judge?

cambaby · 10-03-2005, 07:09 AM

About a third of all Supreme Court judges have never served as judges before being appointed. Bitch moan complain people lol, bunch of dumbasses in this thread.

cambaby · 10-03-2005, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasDreams

WOW!!! Didn't see that one coming. I actually know her from working with her brothers Harris and Jeb, in the mainstream world. She's VERY level headed and intelligent and probably will do a wonderful job.

Let me rephrase that above, TexasDreams is NOT a dumbass, the rest of you are.

Lycanthrope · 10-03-2005, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

About a third of all Supreme Court judges have never served as judges before being appointed. Bitch moan complain people lol, bunch of dumbasses in this thread.

Ginsburg - had (a) judicial position(s) before being appointed
Souter - had (a) judicial position(s) before being appointed
Thomas - had (a) judicial position(s) before being appointed
Breyer - had (a) judicial position(s) before being appointed
Scalia - had (a) judicial position(s) before being appointed
Stevnes - had (a) judicial position(s) before being appointed
O'Connor - had (a) judicial position(s) before being appointed
Kennedy - had (a) judicial position(s) before being appointed
Roberts - had (a) judicial position(s) before being appointed
Rehnquist - did not

one out of ten is not quite one third.

cambaby · 10-03-2005, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

one out of ten is not quite one third.

Isaid out of ALL JUDGES.

Because Congress established the federal appellate courts in 1891, a majority of justices, even in the 20th century, were not federal judges when appointed. It was only after 1965 that the appellate judiciary became the major source for Supreme Court nominees, in part because that experience was deemed relevant and afforded insights on nominees' views.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DG2VEVCJ51.DTL

* NOTE I USED A LIBERAL NEWSPAPER FOR MY SOURCE JUST TO MAKE IT FAIR PANZY
* BTW WHY DO YOU CARE KRAUT?

Ray Nagin · 10-03-2005, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

Isaid out of ALL JUDGES.

Because Congress established the federal appellate courts in 1891, a majority of justices, even in the 20th century, were not federal judges when appointed. It was only after 1965 that the appellate judiciary became the major source for Supreme Court nominees, in part because that experience was deemed relevant and afforded insights on nominees' views.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DG2VEVCJ51.DTL

* NOTE I USED A LIBERAL NEWSPAPER FOR MY SOURCE JUST TO MAKE IT FAIR PANZY
* BTW WHY DO YOU CARE KRAUT?

you = one OWNED fired police officer

STFU already with your bullshit, yeah , back in the day it was common we live in the PRESENT

and NOW ,the present it is NOT COMMON to have judges WITHOUT judicial positions before being appointed

you = one DUMB , ignorant hypocrite BITCH

( 'your' republicans want to make all porn illegal , yet you stick up for them at every chance you get)

cambaby · 10-03-2005, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Nagin

you = one OWNED fired police officer

You are the one owned lol, all your ranting and screaming will not change the fact that my statement was correct.
For someone who hates the Republican party so much you sure are acting like one aka seeing everything in black and white. Regardless of what your Michael Moore emails say she is a great fucking pick do your research.

Ray Nagin · 10-03-2005, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

You are the one owned lol, all your ranting and screaming will not change the fact that my statement was correct.
For someone who hates the Republican party so much you sure are acting like one aka seeing everything in black and white. Regardless of what your Michael Moore emails say she is a great fucking pick do your research.

me hate the republicans ? I think not, I just dont BLINDLY agree with everything they suggest like you seem to do ,

whatever it is they say , you go YEAH , ( except the porn thing making you a hypocrite)

the fact that she might make a good judge has nothing to do with the fact that ALL present and I do mean ALL present Judges on the Supreme Court had prior judicial positions before being appointed and she has NONE

FYI that experience is deemed relevant and affords insights on nominees' views in case you didnt know

so right now having one how HASNT got that experience and us being WITHOUT an insight on the nominees views takes us back to the sixties in the US ( or Zaire )

candyflip · 10-03-2005, 07:43 AM

More "cronyism" huh?

This woman was Bush's PERSONAL lawyer.

cambaby · 10-03-2005, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Nagin

the fact that she might make a good judge has nothing to do with the fact that ALL present and I do mean ALL present Judges on the Supreme Court had prior judicial positions before being appointed and she has NONE - so right now having one how HASNT got that experience and us being WITHOUT an insight on the nominees views takes us back to the sixties in the US ( or Zaire )

I believe Rehnquist had not served as a judge before serving the supreme court, so in MODERN times that would be the precedent(in modern times anyways). Whats the problem? Oh I know the problem, liberals want to whine and moan and use JUDGES for political gain because they have NO POWER in this country. You think people are blind? We see right through you. By the way I am NOT a registered Republican, but I do understand how a capitolistic republic works, you on the other hand want to live in some kind of French-based socialist nation.

Lycanthrope · 10-03-2005, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

Isaid out of ALL JUDGES.

Because Congress established the federal appellate courts in 1891, a majority of justices, even in the 20th century, were not federal judges when appointed. It was only after 1965 that the appellate judiciary became the major source for Supreme Court nominees, in part because that experience was deemed relevant and afforded insights on nominees' views.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DG2VEVCJ51.DTL

* NOTE I USED A LIBERAL NEWSPAPER FOR MY SOURCE JUST TO MAKE IT FAIR PANZY
* BTW WHY DO YOU CARE KRAUT?

My bad, I assumed you meant the current ensemble.

FYI, I'm by no means a liberal. In fact, with the exception of the last Presidential election, where I voted not to vote, (Greg B. actually said something I agreed with - that it wasn't an election, but a hostage situation), I have always voted Republican. For once, do like I did. Step away from blind party following and look at things as they are. Bush has done nothing but hurt the party, and more importantly, this country.

FYI - Though I am 1/2 German, Germany is not the only place on earth that has a city named Berlin.

Ray Nagin · 10-03-2005, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

I believe Rehnquist had not served as a judge before serving the supreme court, so in MODERN times that would be the precedent(in modern times anyways). Whats the problem? Oh I know the problem, liberals want to whine and moan and use JUDGES for political gain because they have NO POWER in this country. You think people are blind? We see right through you. By the way I am NOT a registered Republican, but I do understand how a capitolistic republic works, you on the other hand want to live in some kind of French-based socialist nation.

Rehnquist was nominated in '71 ( the sixties with some creative thinking) and IS NOT A JUDGE AT THE PRESENT ( he dead) thus making that ALL present judges had experience ,

once again you owned your self with wrong information

cambaby · 10-03-2005, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

My bad, I assumed you meant the current ensemble.

FYI, I'm by no means a liberal. In fact, with the exception of the last Presidential election, where I voted not to vote, (Greg B. actually said something I agreed with - that it wasn't an election, but a hostage situation), I have always voted Republican. For once, do like I did. Step away from blind party following and look at things as they are. Bush has done nothing but hurt the party, and more importantly, this country.

FYI - Though I am 1/2 German, Germany is not the only place on earth that has a city named Berlin.

Lol yeah I jumped the gun on Berlin there, I stand corrected on calling you a German lol. I am not a Republican, this is NOT about Bush. I think you people dont understand that money and power rule this country and there is NOTHING you can do about it. We only have to choose between the lesser evils in our government and our society. Bush is TAME compared to the damage that the Clinton years did to our country.
Yes I know there was a surplus(and it was government that owned that surplus not the people)
Yes I know the internet was booming(based on false valuations).
I could go on and on and any political science major will tell you it doesnt matter truly which -party- you vote for it only matters which ISSUES are most important to you. So I take a small hit on porn(what we have 10 feds trying to track down obscene porn lol) but I gain alot on small business tax breaks. Think with your heads people and not your hearts.
LIBERALISM IS DANGEROUS TO THIS NATION because the United States is a CAPITOLIST society. INDIVIDUALISM is the most important thing in the United States period and when you support liberalism in politics you support the downfall of this empire, and thats what the USA is.

mardigras · 10-03-2005, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0

For those who just skim

"Born and raised in Dallas, Miers, 60, earned an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a law degree from Southern Methodist University"

I have a friend who went through law school (this before they had to take a state bar exam). He got his law degree, but went back to school and got his teaching license which he did for many years. Later he went to a law office and handled nothing but injury and liability cases. Is he qualified for the US Supreme Court?

cambaby · 10-03-2005, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Nagin

Rehnquist was nominated in '71 ( the sixties with some creative thinking) and IS NOT A JUDGE AT THE PRESENT ( he dead) thus making that ALL present judges had experience , once again you owned your self with wrong information

Dude you are a fucking stupid waste of life lol, I said PRECEDENT which means past tense. The man just died, like I wish you would with your mindless childlike rants. You have got to be Russian script kiddie or something because all you do is twist words and then say OWNED.

Lycanthrope · 10-03-2005, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

...LIBERALISM IS DANGEROUS TO THIS NATION because the United States is a CAPITOLIST society. INDIVIDUALISM is the most important thing in the United States period and when you support liberalism in politics you support the downfall of this empire, and thats what the USA is

See, we can argue and agree in the same thread.

Ray Nagin · 10-03-2005, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

Lol yeah I jumped the gun on Berlin there, I stand corrected on calling you a German lol. I am not a Republican, this is NOT about Bush. I think you people dont understand that money and power rule this country and there is NOTHING you can do about it. We only have to choose between the lesser evils in our government and our society. Bush is TAME compared to the damage that the Clinton years did to our country.
Yes I know there was a surplus(and it was government that owned that surplus not the people)
Yes I know the internet was booming(based on false valuations).
I could go on and on and any political science major will tell you it doesnt matter truly which -party- you vote for it only matters which ISSUES are most important to you. So I take a small hit on porn(what we have 10 feds trying to track down obscene porn lol) but I gain alot on small business tax breaks. Think with your heads people and not your hearts.
LIBERALISM IS DANGEROUS TO THIS NATION because the United States is a CAPITOLIST society. INDIVIDUALISM is the most important thing in the United States period and when you support liberalism in politics you support the downfall of this empire, and thats what the USA is.

yeah , imagine living in a liberal country as the netherlands where people truly have FREEDOM

yeah , in the netherlands there are marocs and some turks, who maybe muslim

but hey, I dont think they are AS dangerous as some of the THUGS that are living in the ghetto's in the big cities in america

for freedom >>> LIBERALS

for freedom with restrictions >> REPUBLICANS

and btw , this is what freedom means

" the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited:"

WITHOUT being controlled or limited

so a gov that LIMITS your freedom is a gov that gives you NO freedom

mardigras · 10-03-2005, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

(what we have 10 feds trying to track down obscene porn lol)

And tons of "family groups" assisting them by filing 10's of thousands of obscenity complaints across every state in the country (over 50,000 last time I checked)

Ray Nagin · 10-03-2005, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

Dude you are a fucking stupid waste of life lol, I said PRECEDENT which means past tense. The man just died, like I wish you would with your mindless childlike rants. You have got to be Russian script kiddie or something because all you do is twist words and then say OWNED.

are you truly that stupid ?

I say it hasnt happened since the sixties

you give an example where it happened in '71

to me thats the same,

mardigras · 10-03-2005, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

Oh I know the problem, liberals want to whine and moan and use JUDGES for political gain because they have NO POWER in this country.

Or maybe they want people who are going to be making decisions that will affect their lives to have even the smallest qualifications to do so...

jimmyf · 10-03-2005, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

About a third of all Supreme Court judges have never served as judges before being appointed. Bitch moan complain people lol, bunch of dumbasses in this thread.

I know

Ray Nagin · 10-03-2005, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyf

I know

mouhahhh ? what do you know ?

that in the past this was done ? and that they STOPPED doing this around the sixties, with Rehnquist being the last one in '71 and bush now wanting to go back to that time

so back to the seventies y'all , Bush says its cool, so we say its cool

idiots

jimmyf · 10-03-2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Nagin

mouhahhh ? what do you know ?

that in the past this was done ? and that they STOPPED doing this around the sixties, with Rehnquist being the last one in '71 and bush now wanting to go back to that time

so back to the seventies y'all , Bush says its cool, so we say its cool

idiots

Bush fucked'm again (liberals).

I thought he was a dumb fuck

Ray Nagin · 10-03-2005, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyf

Bush fucked'm again (liberals).

I thought he was a dumb fuck

dunno if you realise it but it is Bush who is doing the nominating

mardigras · 10-03-2005, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Nagin

mouhahhh ? what do you know ?

that in the past this was done ? and that they STOPPED doing this around the sixties, with Rehnquist being the last one in '71 and bush now wanting to go back to that time

so back to the seventies y'all , Bush says its cool, so we say its cool

idiots

Where I grew up in the 60s there were water fountains and other facilities marked "whites only". Since that is a "precedent" should it be allowed today? Of course not... it's called progress.

Speaking of, reminds me of an old joke:

If pro is the opposite of con,
what is the opposite of progress?

HorseShit · 10-03-2005, 08:43 AM

I nominate Judge Judy

mardigras · 10-03-2005, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdavis

I nominate Judge Judy

LOL, the other judges would never get a word in edgewise

scoreman · 10-03-2005, 10:33 AM

It will be difficult to determine where this lady stands on First Amendment issues as she has no track record of opinions written like Justices who came with a history on the bench.

Expect to see alot of evasive answers and non committal responses. Roberts used the Clarence Thomas playbook on getting nominated and expect to see Miers do the same. Her commitment to Pro life on abortion may be the only exposure she has.

It is very troubling that she considers Bush the most brilliant man she has ever met.

Everything I was worried most about Bush winning in 2004 is coming to fruition:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=371864

10-03-2005, 04:50 AM	#1
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on Supreme Court To be officially announced in about an hour.

10-03-2005, 05:05 AM	#4
sweetcuties Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Posts: 5,859	Watching... she has no record or stand on major issues __________________

10-03-2005, 05:07 AM	#5
Lycanthrope Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 4,517	So... someone who has never served as a judge, anywhere, ever, is now a slated to be a member of the highest court in the land? __________________ Last edited by Lycanthrope; 10-03-2005 at 05:08 AM..

10-03-2005, 06:14 AM	#8
pr0 rockin tha trailerpark Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: ~Coastal~ Posts: 23,088	For those who just skim "Born and raised in Dallas, Miers, 60, earned an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a law degree from Southern Methodist University" __________________ __________ Loadedca$h - get sum! - Revengebucks - mmm rebills! - webair (gotz sErVrz)

10-03-2005, 06:31 AM	#11
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,800	the uninformed already chirping? __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

10-03-2005, 04:52 AM	#2
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	Who Is Harriet Miers?

10-03-2005, 05:02 AM	#3
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	He's announcing it now. The other report was wrong about being an hour from now.

10-03-2005, 06:58 AM	#15
Manga1 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Malakiaville Posts: 952	"Miers, who has never been married and does not have any children" Interesting choice for a President who keeps talking about family values.

10-03-2005, 07:00 AM	#16
ChefJeff Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,499	She's never been a judge. Only a dumb fuck like Bush would appoint someone who has never been a judge to the Supreme Court! Surely she won't get approved?

10-03-2005, 07:04 AM	#17
selena Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: On The Edge Posts: 7,994	Um...I don't get it. I read the article on ccn, and I still don't get it. If you get hired in as an assistant manager at McDonald's, chances are you have been an assistant manager somewhere else. But you can sit on the Supreme Court and never have been a judge? __________________ ~ Doer of Things at MetArtMoney Where Flawless Beauty Meets Art ~The MetArt Network ~ selena.delgado9

10-03-2005, 07:09 AM	#18
cambaby So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: CR Posts: 3,141	About a third of all Supreme Court judges have never served as judges before being appointed. Bitch moan complain people lol, bunch of dumbasses in this thread.

10-03-2005, 07:43 AM	#25
candyflip Carpe Visio Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: New York Posts: 43,067	More "cronyism" huh? This woman was Bush's PERSONAL lawyer. __________________ Spend you some brain. Email Me

10-03-2005, 08:43 AM	#42
HorseShit Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 17,513	I nominate Judge Judy

10-03-2005, 10:33 AM	#44
scoreman Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 1,491	It will be difficult to determine where this lady stands on First Amendment issues as she has no track record of opinions written like Justices who came with a history on the bench. Expect to see alot of evasive answers and non committal responses. Roberts used the Clarence Thomas playbook on getting nominated and expect to see Miers do the same. Her commitment to Pro life on abortion may be the only exposure she has. It is very troubling that she considers Bush the most brilliant man she has ever met. Everything I was worried most about Bush winning in 2004 is coming to fruition: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=371864 __________________