Harriet Withdrew Nomination

[djstevendellis]

Saw this on one of the headlines today at work. I did not like her much anyway. It will be interesting to see who he picks next. Things happen for a reason. God has a plan for all of us.

[Kobe]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

She was clearly out of her league. Although seeing how happy the neocons and religous right are about this does make me feel like there was an oppertunity missed, she wasn't even close to being qualified and the job is far too important.

[3d_1200]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

good riddens. i personally was very against her for that job, as kobe said she wasn;t even close to being qualified, and she was going to ban abortion which i think would be an aboslute travesty and a disaster to this country. good riddens harriet, the world is a better place with you not involved.

[toasty]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

If you think there was a chance she was going to ban abortion, just wait until you see who Bush posts up next. She'll probably be wearing a t-shirt that says, "I plan to ban abortion" at her announcement.

There are like a dozen people that Bush can appoint without facing the same opposition from his own party on the basis that they aren't conservative enough. All of them are ultraconservative, in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas. I wasn't a huge fan of Meirs because her qualifications were pretty thin for such a position, but what we're about to see will likely be troubling on a whole new level.

Out of the frying pan, into the fire, is the perfect cliche to describe what has happened.

[cosmo]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

She was clearly out of her league. Although seeing how happy the neocons and religous right are about this does make me feel like there was an oppertunity missed, she wasn't even close to being qualified and the job is far too important.

The religious right loved her and wanted to see her get the spot. She was adamantly pro-life, so using that assertion about her withdrawal is tepid, at best.

She spent her legal career trying to overturn Roe. She would've been an activist.

We need an originalist, someone who applies the law(look to Scalia and Thomas), instead of inventing new law(look to justice Breyer, Kennedy and Ginsburg), who have no problem looking to foreign countries to seek help in certain cases.

That's nonsense.

The outrage at the right were lashing out at her lack of credentials, and that's why she resigned.

[cosmo]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

Also, the talk around Washington is that he will prob choose McConnell, or Alito.

Let's hope so.

[toasty]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

The religious right loved her and wanted to see her get the spot. She was adamantly pro-life, so using that assertion about her withdrawal is tepid, at best.

She spent her legal career trying to overturn Roe. She would've been an activist.

We need an originalist, someone who applies the law(look to Scalia and Thomas), instead of inventing new law(look to justice Breyer, Kennedy and Ginsburg), who have no problem looking to foreign countries to seek help in certain cases.

That's nonsense.

The outrage at the right were lashing out at her lack of credentials, and that's why she resigned.

The religious right would take the next person to walk through the door that would definitively overturn Roe. Her credentials were far from impressive by Supreme Court standards, but I have a far time believing that the activist groups on the far right had that kind of problem with her is she was in fact so pro-life...

[cosmo]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

The religious right would take the next person to walk through the door that would definitively overturn Roe. Her credentials were far from impressive by Supreme Court standards, but I have a far time believing that the activist groups on the far right had that kind of problem with her is she was in fact so pro-life...

The religous activists really do not have any say whatsoever in this, though. The ones that put pressure on her that inevitably forced her withdrawal were the individuals who are somewhat tied to the Federalist Society.

And, literally speaking, Roe does need to be overturned. States had their own written policy on the procedure, until it was overturned. The activists looked too too far into the 14th amendment in order to write new policy.

The 14th amendment was written to guarantee former slaves their own privacy rights, not to give women the right to do whatever they want, and it certainly wasn't intended to overturn states rights regarding this issue.

Hence the fight we have now, needing to put an originalist on the bench.

[gsturm]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

my sources here in DC are saying Alito because even though McConnell has wide support on both sides of the aisle (dellinger, sunstein and sullivan on the left, among others) the white house is worried b/c he has written some highly technical piece somewhere about how brown v. board has limited relevance w/r/t federal action or something like that, which they are worried might generate a bunch of awkward and complicated dialogues at any confirmation hearings. i dont really even understand what thats about, but thats the story i'm hearing.

anyhow, i think whoever he picks will be vastly better for the country than miers if only because any alternative is an upgrade just in terms of sheer competence -- ideological issues completely aside.

[cosmo]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

my sources here in DC are saying Alito

If so, I will be very pleased...

[cosmo]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1130499501705

Law.com is saying it's Alito.

[toasty]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

And, literally speaking, Roe does need to be overturned. States had their own written policy on the procedure, until it was overturned. The activists looked too too far into the 14th amendment in order to write new policy.

Way to hit those buzzwords.

I've had this discussion with you before and am not going to rehash it again. Suffice it to say, however, that there are few things that are more meaningless than conservatives crying about "activist judges." As it turns out, Thomas is the guy on the Court that has struck down more legislative acts than anyone else, and Scalia is number 3. By any rational standard, striking down a legislative act is as activist as it gets.

Check out this earlier post on the topic, which summarizes an empirical review of which judges are most "activist:"

http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16083

[cosmo]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

Way to hit those buzzwords.

I've had this discussion with you before and am not going to rehash it again. Suffice it to say, however, that there are few things that are more meaningless than conservatives crying about "activist judges." As it turns out, Thomas is the guy on the Court that has struck down more legislative acts than anyone else, and Scalia is number 3. By any rational standard, striking down a legislative act is as activist as it gets.

Check out this earlier post on the topic, which summarizes an empirical review of which judges are most "activist:"

http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/...ad.php?t=16083

The number of cases that have been struck down doesn't explain judicial activism.

And that article does a very poor job explaining what judicial activism is.

[cosmo]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

http://www.tsowell.com/judicial.htm

If you want to know what judicial activism really is, read this and make sure it sinks in. This explains all avenues of judicial activism, and strikes at the heart of the issue.

[toasty]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

The number of cases that have been struck down doesn't explain judicial activism.

And that article does a very poor job explaining what judicial activism is.

That's kinda the point -- it's an amorphous term that doesn't really have any specific meaning that has been invented by conservatives to describe judicial decisions with which they disagree. Complaining generally about "judicial activism" is equivalent, in my mind, to saying, "I have trouble thinking critically, so I just regurgitate the talking points I hear on Fox News."

As for the article you posted, it pretty clearly describes a "strict constuctionist" judicial philosophy. Why not just say that, rather than relying upon absurd, intentionally vague buzzwords. Are you concerned that the masses would not agree with you if they knew what they were really agreeing with?

This highlights another interesting thing about this whole confirmation process. The right's biggest fear is that Alito, or any nominee for that matter, will go into the confirmation hearings and say, "I believe Roe v Wade is wrong," or God forbid, "I will vote to overturn Roe v Wade if confirmed." Know why? Because that doesn't represent the views of mainstream America. If you are a conservative and you say that in your hearing, you're toast -- even Specter, a Republican and head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would not vote to confirm you if you said that.

If you went in there and said, "I think Roe is settled law, was correctly decided and should remain in force," however, you'd have no problem. That is reality. Roe only matters if a nominee would overturn it, and the far right's number 1 fear is that he will go in and make it clear that he would overturn Roe, b/c that is the most likely path to him not being confirmed. That's a large part of the reason that the right was so pissed when Alito's mom came out and said, "Of course he's against abortion." Not because he's against aboriton, but because there is a public record of that fact.