Village Voice lawsuite

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:40 pm

Ponycat wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote: It was similar to Miers (sp?), except that she was SO woefully unqualified that nobody could endorse her with a straight face (except Bush).
Don't foget about Harry Reid. He was probaly her bigges supporter.

Yeah, that was kind of funny in a political hack kind of way. Some Dems couldn't stand the idea of that romp ever ending, so they supported the hell out of her. I think Feinstein was doing something similar and trying to make it into a gender issue.

I really did respect most of the conservatives' position on that one. It seemed to be: Yeah, we know she's a puppet who will vote however we want her to vote, but we actually want someone in there who will vote the way we want them to vote AND have a strong enough legal mind to make sense when they speak to give their votes validity.

It was reassuring that most/all people want our judges to be experts in the law, even if that adds an element of risk (as people who know and respect the law don't necessarily decide cases based on their own ideologies, but rather within the framework of the law). Sometimes, in the midst of partisan debates, it doesn't always seem to be that way.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:19 pm

1) if RBG wanted to be a judge then she should have started at the court of appeals level at the highest...to get some experience as a judge.
2) she still is very partisin

3) honestly..the supremes are the least partisan of our branches of goverment

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 3:03 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Ponycat wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote: It was similar to Miers (sp?), except that she was SO woefully unqualified that nobody could endorse her with a straight face (except Bush).
Don't foget about Harry Reid. He was probaly her bigges supporter.
Yeah, that was kind of funny in a political hack kind of way. Some Dems couldn't stand the idea of that romp ever ending, so they supported the hell out of her. I think Feinstein was doing something similar and trying to make it into a gender issue.

I really did respect most of the conservatives' position on that one. It seemed to be: Yeah, we know she's a puppet who will vote however we want her to vote, but we actually want someone in there who will vote the way we want them to vote AND have a strong enough legal mind to make sense when they speak to give their votes validity.

It was reassuring that most/all people want our judges to be experts in the law, even if that adds an element of risk (as people who know and respect the law don't necessarily decide cases based on their own ideologies, but rather within the framework of the law). Sometimes, in the midst of partisan debates, it doesn't always seem to be that way.

I still get pissed whenever I hear right wing pundits talking about what a disapointment O'Connor is/was. All based on one issue from what I can tell. I thinks she was great.

As for the Dems supporting Miers, I will always wonder what they knew that we didn't other than she would be an incredibly week presence.