She has no court experience. She's anti-choice. She had to resign for a Texas Lottery commission post due to corruption. She had a career as a corporate lawyer--obviously implicating a very pro-business stance.
Personally, I'm not only concerned for issues of reproductive health, but moreso for worker's rights, workplace discrimination, and corporate responsibility. None of which I see her taking a favorable stance on.
I was listening to Bush's introduction speech about Miers on CNN and he specifically talks about why he nominated Miers to the lottery commission because she had such good character blah blah blah. Why would he say that in his speech if she had to resign because of corruption? It seems like he would avoid the subject entirely if it was a negative aspect of her past career. Do you have a link to something about that resignation? I'm not trying to say you're wrong. Just that it was stupid of Bush to say that if she really did have to resign because of corruption, so it didn't make much sense to me.
If you haven't seen his speech, go to this article, scroll down, and click on the link named "(Watch Bush nominate Miers to the Supreme Court -- 9:09)." If you've got Windows Media Player, then you should be able to watch it.
From a Yahoo article: Rehnquist, whose death paved way for Roberts' nomination, had not served as a judge before President Nixon put him on the Supreme Court. Nineteen other justices previously had never served as judges before getting on the high court.
Anyway...you don't have to have been a judge previously before being a judge, and this goes for any US court.
As an aside, this goes for political office as well. You should have seen the candidate list for the election for the Governor of California, when Arnold Scwarzennegger ended up winning....90 candidates long...if I recall there was a retired meatpacker, a marijuana legalisation attorney, a couple of porn stars, a past his time actor, school teachers, etc running for public office.
Thanks for the information. I guess it doesn't really surprise me that judiciary experience isn't required - but it still troubles me. It makes more sense for political office - a political official isn't serving as a judge, but (supposidly) a voice for the people. A supreme court judge is (obviously) serving as a judge -and a really important one at that- so it seems that it would at least help to have a bit of experience under your belt...
Anyway - I'm probably just rambling and not making so much sense. Thanks again for the info.
But this is a dirty, sneaky move that makes me resent Bush even more. By nominating people with NO PAPER TRAIL, and NO RECORD ON HOW THEY VOTE, we're in the dark. All we have are sentence-long quotes every now and again. She may or may not be qualified--but I'm sure as hell not giving her the benefit of the doubt.
She's chief counsel for the White House. She was formerly Bush's personal lawyer. Before becoming White House counsel, after being Bush's personal attorney, she was his staff secretary, the person in charge of all the paperwork that crosses the Oval Office desk.
just following in his typical line of "i'mma appoint appoint/nominate someone who's interests and expertise are in complete conflict with what the job entails! yee-ha!"
my boyfriend and i were discussing it this morning...it seems like he's totally up to something, nominating someone who's not allowed to answer questions. ok. what the hell doesn't he want us to know? i don't trust any decision he makes...
Comments 65
Reply
But, not being American, I know nothing about this woman except her name. Why are you not pleased?
Reply
Personally, I'm not only concerned for issues of reproductive health, but moreso for worker's rights, workplace discrimination, and corporate responsibility.
None of which I see her taking a favorable stance on.
Reply
If you haven't seen his speech, go to this article, scroll down, and click on the link named "(Watch Bush nominate Miers to the Supreme Court -- 9:09)." If you've got Windows Media Player, then you should be able to watch it.
Reply
I generally trust BBC more than any American news source, because most of the news in the States is based on AP wires.
If you want, I can dig up some more sources about this.
Reply
Ladies: be tough, but always be dainty.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
She has very little judiciary experience...this makes no sense to me. How can we have a supreme court judge with little experience as a JUDGE?
And yeah, yay that she's a woman - but from what little I've heard so far it doesn't sound like she's a bit supporter of women's rights.
Reply
Rehnquist, whose death paved way for Roberts' nomination, had not served as a judge before President Nixon put him on the Supreme Court. Nineteen other justices previously had never served as judges before getting on the high court.
Anyway...you don't have to have been a judge previously before being a judge, and this goes for any US court.
As an aside, this goes for political office as well. You should have seen the candidate list for the election for the Governor of California, when Arnold Scwarzennegger ended up winning....90 candidates long...if I recall there was a retired meatpacker, a marijuana legalisation attorney, a couple of porn stars, a past his time actor, school teachers, etc running for public office.
Reply
Anyway - I'm probably just rambling and not making so much sense. Thanks again for the info.
Reply
But this is a dirty, sneaky move that makes me resent Bush even more. By nominating people with NO PAPER TRAIL, and NO RECORD ON HOW THEY VOTE, we're in the dark. All we have are sentence-long quotes every now and again. She may or may not be qualified--but I'm sure as hell not giving her the benefit of the doubt.
Reply
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_scotus_31;_ylt=AsJ9NtMVp9REII.ugpNghfduCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
She's chief counsel for the White House.
She was formerly Bush's personal lawyer.
Before becoming White House counsel, after being Bush's personal attorney, she was his staff secretary, the person in charge of all the paperwork that crosses the Oval Office desk.
None of these things pleases me very much.
Oh, and she's never been a judge either.
Reply
my boyfriend and i were discussing it this morning...it seems like he's totally up to something, nominating someone who's not allowed to answer questions. ok. what the hell doesn't he want us to know? i don't trust any decision he makes...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment