Okay, well as long as Bush trusts her...
So, everyone remembers the John Roberts nomination, since he was just confirmed this past week. I remember back when the politicians were complaining about his lack of qualifications. They said he didnt have enough judicial experience, and they didnt know enough about his politics. Well, I had to disagree with them. Roberts was the MOST qualified person to EVER be nominated for the Supreme Court. His former positions had put him in the Supreme Court as a lawyer, and he argued hundreds of cases in front of them. Being a Constitutional lawyer, he probably knows the Constitution better than most of the Supreme Court judges. Of course, anyone who has read my earlier articles can see what I think about Supreme Court judges. I hope I have made my point that he was qualified. Well, obviously, this is not what I am writing about here. I am writing about the anti-Roberts, and she goes by the name of Harriet Miers.
Now, when I say "anti-Roberts", I am not trying to imply she is evil or bad, but rather that she fulfills the complaints that politicians staged against Roberts. Unlike Roberts, we really dont know anything about her. She is a lawyer, plain and simple. Though she has done some nice things, such as headed a state bar association, as well as a couple other things, she has never been a judge. Though Roberts was only a judge for a short amount of time, his decisions gave alot of insight into his opinions on a couple issues, but his major qualification was his job as a Supreme Court lawyer. Miers has done no such thing.
Essentially, Bush is asking us to put her in the most important court in our nation, to decide the future of our country, only with his assurance that "she is a good person". Now, this is something we cant do. We dont know if she is a good judge, and we dont know how well she knows constitutional law. Politicians who support her have one thing to say. They say we need to wait for the senate judiciary panel hearings to learn more about her. Unfortunately, I believe that these hearings dont really tell you anything. Because the candidates are allowed to deny to answer any question, they dont have to give their opinions on anything. I dont actually believe it is necessary for them to give their opinions though, because ones opinion is not something that should serve a big role when deciding constitutionality. The problem is that Miers has no experience with constitutional doctrine, and so her rulings from the bench will be more likely based on her opinions. As my earlier article says, I want them to rule in my favor when they eventually do rule using their opinions, setting our court up with candidates like this only furthers the problems with the Supreme Court that we already have.
Any comments?
Now, when I say "anti-Roberts", I am not trying to imply she is evil or bad, but rather that she fulfills the complaints that politicians staged against Roberts. Unlike Roberts, we really dont know anything about her. She is a lawyer, plain and simple. Though she has done some nice things, such as headed a state bar association, as well as a couple other things, she has never been a judge. Though Roberts was only a judge for a short amount of time, his decisions gave alot of insight into his opinions on a couple issues, but his major qualification was his job as a Supreme Court lawyer. Miers has done no such thing.
Essentially, Bush is asking us to put her in the most important court in our nation, to decide the future of our country, only with his assurance that "she is a good person". Now, this is something we cant do. We dont know if she is a good judge, and we dont know how well she knows constitutional law. Politicians who support her have one thing to say. They say we need to wait for the senate judiciary panel hearings to learn more about her. Unfortunately, I believe that these hearings dont really tell you anything. Because the candidates are allowed to deny to answer any question, they dont have to give their opinions on anything. I dont actually believe it is necessary for them to give their opinions though, because ones opinion is not something that should serve a big role when deciding constitutionality. The problem is that Miers has no experience with constitutional doctrine, and so her rulings from the bench will be more likely based on her opinions. As my earlier article says, I want them to rule in my favor when they eventually do rule using their opinions, setting our court up with candidates like this only furthers the problems with the Supreme Court that we already have.
Any comments?
posted by Brad Green at 5:59 PM
4 Comments:
Klamath Lake blue green algae was the subject I was researching when I came across your site, Brad Green. General interest and popularity of the subject Okay, well as long as Bush trusts her... has lead me to your site as well as to Klamath Lake blue green algae. Yours is a fine site providing a real service and exceptional content. Thanks for reading my comment
adult stem cells was the subject I was researching when I came across your site, Brad Green. General interest and popularity of the subject Okay, well as long as Bush trusts her... has lead me to your site as well as to adult stem cells. Yours is a fine site providing a real service and exceptional content. Thanks for reading my comment
Brad Green, This site came up when I was doing my research on blue green algae. Even though my search for blue green algae information to support Okay, well as long as Bush trusts her... may not end here, your site provides valuable content will certainly will perpetuate. Thanks for the read.
My visit to your site, Brad Green, was the results of the search for information regarding the subject Okay, well as long as Bush trusts her.... Even though some of the articles on the site may not support the project, I must say, it’s an informational and very interesting site and its content will benefit many. Thank you for reading my comment.
Post a Comment
<< Home