No service on the bench at all. While the Bush administration will point out that this is not that unheard of, citing past examples, but most of those had served as elected officials or in other public service positions. She is a true blank slate, haveing served the president and not the people for the last few years.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers on Monday to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Bush announced his choice in a televised Oval Office event saying, "For the past five years Harriet Miers has served in critical roles in our nation's government."
she appears to have the same credentials as Michael Brown and David Safavian, loyalty to George Bush above all else.
UPDATE, a quote from Think Progress
In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met.
Bush is Brilliant?
5 comments:
Bush is Brilliant?
To a dim bulb, probably, yes/
but most of those had served as elected officials or in other public service positions
She was a dallas city councilwoman and served on numerous boards of charity organizations and as dallas bar president. While I'm disappointed in her nomination, at least get your facts straight.
bryan s
Brian, electey to city council is a major public position, not by any stretch ...
or, are you Joking?
For a person looking for a life time appointment, she has no background at all.
The vast majority of non judges who were appointed to the court had served in congres, the senate, or had held national positions that had required senate approvial...
she served on a city council.
this is the one time I will ever read your ridiculous site, so feel free to respond because I won't read it...
That said, since I am here by an accidental click from the WP.com website, know this:
My personal opinion (equal to yours, whether you like or it not) is that you wouldn't have been happy with anyone Bush picked. Even if he picked your first choice, you would be blogging conspiracy theories and more, claiming Bush's choice was some sort of ploy or whatever.
Clowns like you focus on unsubstantiated statistics to validate skinny arguments posed from your fat fannies. And by unsubstantiated, I mean this: no where in the U.S. constitution (news flash: it's what our gov't uses to run this country) does it require that such "background" is a pre-requisite for nomination or approval to the Supreme Court.
Y'know, I personally think the founding fathers were pretty brilliant, and despite the volumes (in both senses) of your arguments, I don't regard you to be as quick as they. Thus, I am more inclined to trust their judgment in what matters to be a Supreme Court justice than your limited and superficial background investigations. Both parties (me? a Republican? not a chance, I can't stand any of them, dem or rep) will have a chance to CONFIRM her or not, and you voice your approval or not vicariously thru your elected officials.
Normally, I would assume you know this, but since this process is also outlined in the constitution, you probably haven't heard about it. Sleeping in high school civics class apparently continues to haunt you throughout this blog site. Our gov't is a neat system, try reading about it sometime.
As to her particular qualifications vis-a-vis other potential candidates for the job, then its the President's prerogative to nominate whom he wants...not yours. When you win a presidential election with 270 or more electoral votes (again, see the Constitution) you personally can choose your personal favorite.
Until then, try focusing on the process to advance your arguments and fatten your position, and I don't mean the already fat one you are sitting on, nor the gushy and gooey thing on top of your shoulders.
Your attitude and ridiculous approach is what drives U.S. citizens from the whole process. Additionally, one could make an argument (tho I don't have time/space here) that it drives the poles of the U.S. political process farther apart, especially given our biased media. BTW, we may disagree (or not) on political bias, but I think everyone can agree that all U.S. (and most internat'l) media is biased toward PROFIT and making money rather than some abstruse "right" for the "people to know." BTW2: There is no "right of the people to know" in the U.S. constitution, only rights of individuals, and BTW3, there is no right for an individual to know...back to that whole founding-father-genius-thing, which brings me to my final point:
As long as people like you exist as members of the U.S. political system, I thank the founding fathers for creating and enduring an electoral college to guarantee that control of the fate of the chief executive is not decided by people with your logic, argument, or approach. O/w, you would cancel out my vote, and I would have stayed awake in High School civics class for nothing.
I will give you about 6 years to learn a little civics, and I will return to your blog then. Hopefully, b/w now and then, I will be more careful on the wp.com website so I don't end up back here. The 20 minutes I have spent on your site is 20 minutes of my life that I can never get back.
Anonymous
Thank you for you visit. As you stated, you are entitled to your opinion.
However, it is clear this opinion is coming from a person lacking an understanding of history, public policy, democracy or civics.
I welcome your return visit in 6 years. I can only pray that it will be as humorous as this one has been
John
Post a Comment