tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post112911745786253599..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: The Supreme Court and the Loss of PrincipleJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129579718690895902005-10-17T15:08:00.000-05:002005-10-17T15:08:00.000-05:00The original post makes a reckless reference to th...The original post makes a reckless reference to the Constitution hanging by a thread, just as Joseph Smith prophesied it would. Two points: (1) The appointment to the Supreme Court of a person less qualified than some but more qualified than most does not constitute a major threat to the Constitution. If she were secretly plotting to ignore or deliberately misinterpret the Constitution, that might be a different matter, but no responsible person alleges such a thing. (2) I challenge you to find a reputable record of Joseph Smith's "prophecy." Everyone seems to know the RUMOR that Joseph said this, but no one can point out where. As a rumor, it ought to be treated as such, with a skeptical eye.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129305087863222822005-10-14T10:51:00.000-05:002005-10-14T10:51:00.000-05:00The Smoking Gun has photocopies of the notes betwe...<B><A HREF="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1012055miers1.html" REL="nofollow">The Smoking Gun</A></B> has photocopies of the notes between Miers and W. They're practically SWAK.<BR/><BR/>Indy: I'm not saying that she's <I>unqualified</I> because she has a close relationship with W (please see my previous messages), I'm saying that, in the absence of any qualifications that would otherwise recommend her to the court, the only logical reason why W would nominate her is because they're buddies. That's <A HREF="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cronyism" REL="nofollow">the very definition of cronyism</A>.<BR/><BR/>I'm not interested in diverting this conversation into one about Iraq, but since the whole thing has been made up from the start, why should we complain about one little videoconference being staged?Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129267078684160342005-10-14T00:17:00.000-05:002005-10-14T00:17:00.000-05:00Dallas Bar and Texas Bar Assocation President is a...Dallas Bar and Texas Bar Assocation President is a slight cut above "lottery chair"--no small feats either. To re-emaphasize: Bush's choice was politically stubborn, when he has little capital to be stubborn with. <BR/><BR/>That notwithstanding, Warren was the Attorney General for the State of California, a noteworthy achievement but hardly a sparkler in the legal field (there are 49 others after all). Also, the history of governorship in America should show that legal ingenuity is not as important as political capability in winning gubenatorial elections (Wallace, Bush, Schwarzenegger). Bush is simply following historical suit. Who knows? With Miers, she may pull a Warren and shift the court to the left. <BR/><BR/>No matter though. I can sympathize with Bush's determination (what else do you do when you're facing a lost cause last term presidency). However, getting Miers to the bench will cost the Republicans greatly. Whatever Miers can bring to the bench, it simply isn't worth it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129260641778525312005-10-13T22:30:00.000-05:002005-10-13T22:30:00.000-05:00Mike, I haven't made up my mind about Miers, but t...Mike, I haven't made up my mind about Miers, but the stuff quoted in the NYT article is laughable. Of course people who have a certain level of friendship or acquaintanceship are going to praise each other.<BR/><BR/>The article's author tried it make it sound ominous, but it was limited to things like "letters contain in" a group that also contained "these other things."<BR/><BR/>So they praised each other at some award ceremony. That's what you do at award ceremonies.<BR/><BR/>It's just laughable to point to all that and say it's a basis for rejecting her.<BR/><BR/>Now maybe she really is unqualified, but the mutual admiration society in and of itself does not make her unqualified.<BR/><BR/>I laughed about has hard as I did when I saw the news tonight about the rehearsal for Bush's talk with soldiers in Iraq, and the media denouncing it as staged. But rehearsing it for the sake of the soldiers was probably a good gesture towards the soldiers to they could prepare their responses. Do you think any good politician doesn't practice or rehearse what he's going to say on televsion?<BR/><BR/>Who do you think those soldiers would rather talk with, Bush, Gore, or Kerry?<BR/><BR/>Wait, I know who I'd like to see on the SC. Let's bring back Bork. ;-)Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129258127971257562005-10-13T21:48:00.000-05:002005-10-13T21:48:00.000-05:00Before Earl Warren was Chief Justice, he was Attor...Before Earl Warren was Chief Justice, he was Attorney General and Governor of California. No small feats, those. Kinda makes Dallas City Councilwoman and Texas state lottery chair ... well, look insignificant.<BR/><BR/>For insight into how deep the lurve is between Miers and GWB, see <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/politics/politicsspecial1/11archive.html?hp&ex=1129089600&en=025c849e781015f2&ei=5094&partner=homepage" REL="nofollow">this <I>New York Times</I> article</A>. She's practically panting all over him.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129239494214531512005-10-13T16:38:00.000-05:002005-10-13T16:38:00.000-05:00Mike, While I'm definitely a little skeptical of t...Mike, <BR/><BR/>While I'm definitely a little skeptical of the HM nomination (why Bush would choose someone so controversial when his approval is so low is beyond me), I even more skeptical about the argument that the lack of paper trail equates judicial incompetence. If we condemned every justice who had not previously served as a judge, we would condemning Chief Justice Earl Warren, the icon of modern liberals. True, Warren ended up being a kind of turncoat for Eisenhower's cause, but that "turn-coatishness" is now viewed as a tremendous blessing for civil rights in America. In other words, the proof will be in the pudding. <BR/><BR/>And a crush, Mike?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129220331433893892005-10-13T11:18:00.000-05:002005-10-13T11:18:00.000-05:00Dan: I don't believe that you gave a valid argumen...Dan: <I>I don't believe that you gave a valid argument against the appointment.</I><BR/><BR/>Okay, then:<BR/><BR/>1. She has no experience whatsoever that shows she's weighed Constitutional issues and written opinions on them.<BR/><BR/>2. Because she has no paper trail, and even people who know her don't know what she believes about key issues, she's a cypher. We don't know how she will rule, or even if she <I>can</I> rule effectively. We're being asked to trust GWB that he knows what he's doing (and the man doesn't have a great track record for that ... <I>[cough] WMDs [cough]</I>).<BR/><BR/>3. Those who support HM's nomination claim that opposition to her is based on sexism, yet their reasons for supporting her are themselves sexist: She was the first woman partner in a major law firm, the first woman to head the Texas state bar, etc. The qualifications offered by her supporters are based more on her genitalia than her legal experience.<BR/><BR/>How's that for starters?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>The main argument was that she was a close personal friend of the President. In reality, we would expect the President to appoint someone he knows and trusts.</I><BR/><BR/>There's a difference between choosing someone you "know and trust" and choosing a close friend who, by all accounts, seems to have something of a crush on you. The first is a smart business decision; the second is cronyism.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>And second, let's not forget how many prophets and apostles have been close personal friends of other prophets and apostles before their calling. Just because they're friends doesn't mean that they aren't the best person for the job.</I><BR/><BR/>Apples and oranges.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I'm not saying that this is the best appointment for the position, just that the argument was not made effectively.</I><BR/><BR/>At least we agree on the latter.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129220001200585432005-10-13T11:13:00.000-05:002005-10-13T11:13:00.000-05:00Dan, are you speaking of my arguement? My main ar...Dan, are you speaking of my arguement? My main arguement, which is somewhat tongue in cheek, is that she said Bush was the most brilliant man she'd ever met. Also, that I'd like to see someone close to the little guy, not the huge corporations, but a true servant of the people. <BR/><BR/>Being close to one party on issues of judgement does present a problem. A judge needs to be impartial and deal the law justly.<BR/><BR/>Because of Miers closeness to Bush, how will she vote when it comes to issues close to his heart such as his abolishment of the need for Habeas Corpus via the Patriot Act? Or on issues such as torture? The Senate just passed a bill 90-9 which guarantees we treat prisoners humanely and Bush is threatening to veto it. Would she hold Bush's feet to the fire if he ignores the will of Congress if and when this becomes law?<BR/><BR/>In 2003 in the case of case of Gherbi v. Bush, the Bush Administration lawyers argued that US courts would not have jurisdiction over detainees even if they were being summarily executed. In its ruling, an astonished Ninth Circuit court wrote that the government asserted the power to do with detainees "as it will, when it pleases, without compliance to any rule of law of any kindthe US government has never before asserted such a grave and startling positiona position so extreme that it raises the gravest concerns under both national and international law." What would Miers do with this when it comes to dishing out justice against the most brilliant man she'd ever met?<BR/><BR/>These are important and upcoming issues in the court.<BR/><BR/>In summary, would she truly defend the constitution and hold the President accountable to established law, or would she side with her former boss (the most brilliant man she'd ever met)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129182162326531362005-10-13T00:42:00.000-05:002005-10-13T00:42:00.000-05:00I don't believe that you gave a valid argument aga...I don't believe that you gave a valid argument against the appointment. The main argument was that she was a close personal friend of the President. In reality, we would expect the President to appoint someone he knows and trusts. And second, let's not forget how many prophets and apostles have been close personal friends of other prophets and apostles before their calling. Just because they're friends doesn't mean that they aren't the best person for the job. In fact, I'd even say that with God's hand in it, He might guide friendships to form so that in the future a calling or appointment can be made. I'm not saying that this is the best appointment for the position, just that the argument was not made effectively.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10818828319388554886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129176471763384542005-10-12T23:07:00.000-05:002005-10-12T23:07:00.000-05:00What I would like to see in the supreme court is a...What I would like to see in the supreme court is a nominee who has spent his/her career defending the little people. My main beef with Miers (besides saying Bush is the most brilliant man she'd ever met) is that she has been a corporate lawyer all her career. To get someone in any office that is truly close to the little people would be a great thing.<BR/><BR/>Miers was praised by republicans for arguing in 2000 that Cheney wasn't a Texan (in spite of his texas drivers license, home listed as his residence etc.) so that the little glitch in the constitution which states that the electorate can't vote for a pair where one is not from their state. <BR/>Good thing we don't let the constitution get in the way of politics. Nice job Harriet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129165710436013592005-10-12T20:08:00.000-05:002005-10-12T20:08:00.000-05:00Shouldn't the most brilliant man she has ever know...Shouldn't the most brilliant man she has ever known be able to articulate a sentence without sounding drunk, stoned, or just plain stupid?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129160038579770592005-10-12T18:33:00.000-05:002005-10-12T18:33:00.000-05:00Aha, this is where I was confused. Julie Myers, 3...Aha, this is where I was confused. Julie Myers, 36 was chosen by Bush to run the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. She is the one that is the niece to Richard Myers and has the other crony connections.<BR/><BR/>On Bush's brilliance: I also doubt the most brilliant man in the world could be so wrong about weapons of destruction in Iraq. I stand by my vote of no confidence in Miers ability to judge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129159428115256462005-10-12T18:23:00.001-05:002005-10-12T18:23:00.001-05:00Serious problem that is.Serious problem that is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129159388233571762005-10-12T18:23:00.000-05:002005-10-12T18:23:00.000-05:00It's not in his debates either. We have a serious...It's not in his debates either. We have a serious man if Bush seriously is the most brilliant man Miers has ever known. <BR/>Sorry about the mistake on the relationship to Richard Myers. I had a bad source I guess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129141458451850952005-10-12T13:24:00.000-05:002005-10-12T13:24:00.000-05:00I know the President personally...and he is indeed...<I>I know the President personally...and he is indeed quite brilliant, regardless of what the press and the left says.</I><BR/><BR/>Samuel, can you give us any evidence that this is true, beyond your own word?<BR/><BR/>My observation (from his public speeches) is that he seems quite clueless about a good many things. By his own admission, he doesn't read newspapers, and he appears to not be aware of viewpoints other than those of his closest advisers.<BR/><BR/>He seemed to have no idea what was going on in New Orleans immediately after Katrina, and even praised Mike Brown publicly, even though the press was widely reporting the devastation and lack of relief. (I'm not blaming him for the poor relief response, I'm just saying he didn't seem to know anything about the problem.)<BR/><BR/>At the last press conference he was baffled by implications that Miers could turn out to be another Souter and that people would question his record as a conservative.<BR/><BR/>Get him away from a prepared text and he comes across as confused and out of touch.<BR/><BR/>Please tell me where his brilliance lies, since it doesn't seem to be in public speaking, information analysis, or general awareness of beliefs beyond his inner circle.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129133685159295382005-10-12T11:14:00.000-05:002005-10-12T11:14:00.000-05:00I don't know who's doing this parody of a Harriet ...I don't know who's doing <A HREF="http://harrietmiers.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">this parody of a Harriet Miers blog</A>, but it's quite funny.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129132930352108032005-10-12T11:02:00.000-05:002005-10-12T11:02:00.000-05:00I personally oppose Miers because of her proven tr...I personally oppose Miers because of her proven track record of being a poor judge of people. She has reportedly said that George W. Bush is the "most brilliant man I've ever met." That should put a question mark in everyone's mind!<BR/><BR/>She is also the niece of the big General Richard Miers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129132531621559982005-10-12T10:55:00.000-05:002005-10-12T10:55:00.000-05:00The New Republic has run a great article on the 15...<I>The New Republic</I> has run a great article on <A HREF="http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=20051017&s=hacks101705" REL="nofollow">the 15 worst cronies in the Bush administration</A> (free registration required, or use <A HREF="http://www.bugmenot.com/" REL="nofollow">BugMeNot</A>). Giving powerful executive positions to friends is nothing new for U.S. Presidents, but Bush has taken it to new levels.<BR/><BR/>The problem is not just with the SCOTUS — corruption is rampant at every level of the federal government. The Constitution's limits on the powers of the state have been conveniently set aside, and the courts — who are supposed to provide the check on overreaching federal power — have turned into enablers.<BR/><BR/><I>That's</I> the big concern about the Miers nomination: She's a Bush crony who isn't likely to rule against the administration when it violates the Constitution (like, for example, going to war without getting a declaration from Congress, or examining library records without getting a warrant).Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1129119062913913352005-10-12T07:11:00.000-05:002005-10-12T07:11:00.000-05:00Err, not "chief" justice.Err, not "chief" justice.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219023897626648057noreply@blogger.com