Okay. . .what is going on? Are we against Miers or for her?

[SammyBlue]

We are relishing the fact that conservatives hate her and Drunky McCokehead is taking a beating over her.

But it is beginning to seem that people are posting things conservatives are saying about her as a way to see "see, conservatives hate her!"

Ummm. . .I'm more liberal than 99.9% of the population. I don't care if the conservatives hate her. I don't believe she should be a Justice; PERIOD!

[NNadir]

1. I'm with you.

[TerdlowSmedley]

2. I hope she'll hang in there, just for laughs.

But when the shit hits the fan, I hope that Congress isn't insane enough to seat her on the court.

[cornermouse]

3. We are unalterably opposed to Harriet.

[Catch22Dem]

4. my opposition to her has nothing to do with her conservatism/liberalism

Since we don't know enough about that.

I'm opposed to her because she's GROSSLY underqualified to receive a lifetime appointment to our highest court.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. She is so unqualified that I don't even get to thinking politics

It sucks that Bush is in office for three more years barring impeachment and that is ALWAYS a very long shot. So we have a problem. Bush will never nominate anyone who I would gladly accept. She very possibly is not the worst he has to offer, it's a shell game ultimately, but I can't even get to thinking about it. No one should become a Supreme Court Justice with her qualifications. I am willing to accept that she is an intelligent person, most people with her career accomplishments are, but that doesn't make her qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. I'm a smart person but I'm not qualified to be Attorney General. End of discussion. Somethings are more basic than even politics.

[MichiganVote]

5. Bush wants her---she must stink. Against her.

[Divernan]

6. Against her, but in hopes of explosive confirmation hearing to hurt Bush.

A hearing will give the Dems on the Judiciary Committee a chance to ask many embarassing questions which would reveal a lot of the crap that has gone on behind closed doors at the White House. But that is precisely why you can bet the farm she will withdraw without ever facing any questions.

[HockeyMom]

7. Putting aside Roe,

which both conservatives and liberals will be judging her on, the woman appears to be clueless on CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. That ALONE should disqualify her for BOTH sides. Being a "personal friend" of GW Bush is NOT the prime qualification for SCOTUS.

[Blue_Roses]

8. I'm against her

she's not qualified. She a lapdog for Bush. Nope she shouldn't even be in the running. She was the one at Bush's ranch who gave him the Aug 6 memo for god's sake.

[madeline_con]

9. Her only "qualification" is DUH-bya wants her in the SCOTUS

That's enough to turn me against her, but the more I hear, the more uneasy she makes me.

She goes from being a liberal Catholic to a conservative evangelical?? What's THAT about? Who's to say what radical change she might undergo while serving on the bench? She could shave her head and become a Moonie, for crying out loud!

[msongs]

10. she is bush's PERSONAL attorney nt

[Ksec]

11. Well if she steps away do you have any doubt the next will be worse?

I dont. If shoe loses or steps down the new pick will be so far right that Miers will look like a Liberal. I say we pick the best of the two bad picks and imo thats Miers.

[msongs]

26. No thanks, we should fight ALL poor choices. those who stand for

nothing will fall for anything.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[tridim]

12. IMO she's just like her boss

Uninterested in pretty much everything and a below-average intellect. I doubt I'd even hire her as a normal attorney.

[Snotcicles]

13. I think Laura wanted her. That is probably where the new

facial bruising came from. He told Laura it's was her fault he is getting all this crap. So he went out back and kicked his own ass.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

14. If the choice is between a sub par crony and an ivy league fundie

I'm taking the sub par crony. At least the sub par crony is one vote...a constitutional scholar with an agenda favoring theocracy could influence other votes on the court.

Ya, the choices suck, but we don't control the Executive branch (so we don't get the pick) and we don't control the Senate (to actually stop the insanity).

Reality bites sometimes.

[cascadiance]

20. The problem is that we don't KNOW that she's not a fundie.

If we knew for sure that she wasn't a fundie, then I might agree with you. Even if she weren't the best of justices, if she showed the capacity to grow into the job, I might accept her. But she could be both unqualified (which we do know pretty much) and also a RW fundie.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

22. Fundie or not, she doesn't have the gravitas to persuade others

She just doesn't have the background in constitutional law nor has she shown the capacity to be a real scholar.

That makes her a single, possible wingnut vote. That's about the best we can hope for from this prez. Seriously, he's NOT going to nominate a real progressive or even a moderate. At least Miers is a lone vote lacking the capacity to convince others to vote along with her.

That's just my opinion.

[cascadiance]

27. Someone who thinks and is qualified sometimes can be on the right side!

Rehnquist, much as I hated him for most of his stances, at least had the sensibility to dissent on the votes for cases involving supporting the concept of "corporate personhood" and correctly rejecting it for the judicial activism it was/is. I suspect that someone who's a lightweight like Mieirs won't have the sense and strength to do the same sort of thing and will just go along with way the Scalias on the court want to vote.

We might not get someone as in the middle and thinking as O'Connor, but I do want someone that is able to think and reason for themselves. I think we have more chance of someone like that turning into a Souter rather than someone like Thomas, that also just follows Scalia's lead.

I think most of us probably feel that if people really think for themselves and what's good for society, they're more apt to be liberal.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

28. In theory, I would agree with you...but I have seen 'smart AND crazy'

Like Scalia. Let's face it, Scalia is not stupid and as much as I agree with the concept that intelligence and thought generally tilt to the liberal end of the spectrum, it is not always so.

Scalia pulls the less intelligent Thomas along with him. Miers is also a follower but, as DUer Plaid Adder posted, she is not a conservative, she is not a liberal...she is an opportunist.

I can't really defend her because I agree she is no legal scholar but I am more afraid of a foaming at the mouth fundie with an impressive legal resume.

[cascadiance]

29. To me she's more like Thomas...

I don't see her any "less" conservative than Thomas. Personally, I would prefer a Rehnquist over a Thomas, who has some degree of sense at times, and someone that perhaps can be talked rationally to about an issue, and not just follow a "herd mentality" that can't be reasoned with. Anyone that thinks Bush is one of the brightest minds out there, is someone that looks like they are a "primo" herd mentality candidate.

[htuttle]

15. We're against her

Everyone is against her -- She'd make a bad judge.

[MsConduct]

16. I'm against any and all vacuous sycophants who are

blindly in love with the dub. I bet she's a member of his scatology club.
:-)

[Just Me]

17. She's a BushCo HO. Of course I don't want her as a SCJ.

On the other hand, there is a process through which she should be allowed to travel through.

[deadparrot]

18. Like others, I oppose her because she's ridiculously unqualified.

However, if/when she withdraws, I fear to see who he nominates in her place. :scared:

[cascadiance]

19. Fundamentally she needs to be qualified, and not just a crony!

Unfortunately she doesn't even pass that test. The last person I want on the Supremes is someone that is both unqualified and has RW attitudes towards Roe v. Wade and other specific issues. She very well could be that extreme case. Dobson hopefully will be forced to assess whether she fits that if he's forced to testify on what info he was given earlier.

Of course if it were more obvious that she was a RW Bork-like zealot, then the RW'ers would be for her and hopefully the Dems would be lining up their "special case" fillibustering call to action, and if they go nuclear, respond by shutting down the government until that person gets pulled. It also shouldn't matter how many candidates Bush puts up. Dems shouldn't get "worn down" by having multiple candidates thrown at them in a row, if they are all equally objectionable. They should stick to their guns.

The thing is, that the status quo is likely going to be no worse than what he's going to give us, and we still have Sandra Day O'Connor serving on it for the time being. Until she commits to leaving, there's no big rush to get someone approved. Let the Rethugs and Bush sweat this one and stick to keeping a firm hand and reject those that are going to bring in extremist viewpoints or aren't qualified.

[Rowdyboy]

21. Oppose her? You join Rush, Bork, Swiftboat Vets, Anne Coulter and CFW

(Concerned Women for America) in opposition

Support her? You're with Bush, Dobson, Robertson, Cornyn and Hutchison

Its a conundrum..... :shrug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. I was for her before I was against her

:evilgrin:

[Bouncy Ball]

25. Her political leaning is a bit unimportant in light of the fact that

it seems to be she'd just hands down be a crappy justice either way. I'm just glad, seeing how incompetent she is, that she "belongs" to their side. Rather fitting.