Bush picks Supreme Court nominee (1 Viewer)

[Rafy]

A woman to replace a woman.
She has never been married, and has NEVER served as a judge (apparently not unusual of supreme court apointments in the US)

Harriet Ellan Miers is another conservative, so the balance of the Supreme court of the US has shifted back to the right...


http://us.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/03/scotus.preview/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers on Monday to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Bush announced his choice in a televised Oval Office event saying, "For the past five years Harriet Miers has served in critical roles in our nation's government."

Miers said she was grateful and humbled by the nomination. (Watch: Miers has little judicial experience -- 2:30)

"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society," she said. (Full story)

If confirmed by the Senate, Miers, 60, would join Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second sitting female justice on the bench. O'Connor became the court's first ever female justice in 1981.

Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association. She also served on the Dallas City Council. (Miers' background)

The choice to replace O'Connor could be pivotal. She has been a key swing vote in the past and has, for example, voted to strike down abortion laws that failed to contain health exceptions. (Full story)

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I have to say I'm generally not in favour of appointing people to the highest court of any country with no judicial experience.

However, from time to time it does happen - even in Australia. Justice Callinan of the High Court of Australia had never been a judge before his appointment.

 

[loquasagacious]

It provides a way to accelerate the gifted to the top and short-circuit institutional problems however the fip side is it allows for nepotism, corruption and the appointment of the unsuited.

 

[insert-username]

President Bush appears to be taking his chance to really swing the Supreme Court towards his own conservative stance for the next few decades. Ms Miers is notably pro-life, and we could see some interesting abortion debates in the years to come.


I_F

 

[Rafy]

Indeed,

I expect the Roe v. Wade decision to be challenged in the not to distant future...

 

[Rorix]

i don't. for good reason.

 

[Rafy]

i don't. for good reason.

What are these "good" reasons?

 

[Rorix]

Firstly, as the one who is suggesting Roe v Wade will be overturned, the onus is on you to provide some sort of evidence beyond "this person is pro-life" and it would have been proper for you to provide said reasons when i voiced my disagreement, as opposed to asking me for my "good" reasons.

Regardless, Roe v Wade is a pretty settled precedent, and most of the claims that it will be overturned stemmed from Democrats last election (aside from random rightwing groups) who basically tried to frame it as a vote for Bush is a vote against abortion.

Furthermore, Roe v Wade was initially decided on a Court with a majority of Republican appointed judges.

 

[Rafy]

I never suggested it would be overturned, merely that it would be challenged.

Why? For the mere reason that the pro-life side will seize any opportunity to attempt to overturn it. Wether the Supreme Court actually agrees to hear such a case is an entirely different matter.

For the record i completely concur with with the principles of Roe v Wade decision and would frown upon any moves to attempt to overturn it.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

For the record i completely concur with with the principles of Roe v Wade decision and would frown upon any moves to attempt to overturn it.

I am in favour of abortion and I approve of the practical outcome of the case, but personally I find the reasoning in Roe v Wade somewhat tenuous.

 

[Rorix]

Apologies Deus, I misread it as you feeling it would be overturned.

I agree with Moonlight regarding the Roe reasoning.

 

[erawamai]

The reasoning in CES v Superclinics and the case of Wald in Australia were pretty convincing.

I think roe v wade is based on a privacy right whereas in Australia the reasoning is based on the defence of necessity.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Cases probably never come up in Australia as abortions would just never be prosecuted (because of Superclinics).

In the US, Roe deals with a constitutional right - so the reasoning ought to be strong. Whereas congress or state governments could not make abortions illegal (without the very difficult task of achieving a constitutional amendment), the government in Australia could.

 

[insert-username]

I guess the only way to tell is to wait and see. Everyone has an opinion, and it seems that everyone isn't particularly impressed at President Bush. Conservatives are howling at him to pick someone they know is conservative and has a proven track record on constitutional issues. Liberals want a moderate in the court, just as Sandra Day O'Connor was. It'll be interesting to see how much support President Bush manages to keep after the storm has passed.


I_F

 

[Rafy]

Her view on gay rights:

"A questionnaire filled out in 1989 by U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is being promoted as an insight into her views on gay rights and the law. In answers to a Texas gay rights group when she was running for a seat on Dallas City Council, she said she believed gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as straight Americans, but that she also opposed repeal of the state's sodomy law criminalizing same-sex sexual conduct." - CNN

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Talk about doublespeak

 

[erawamai]

Her view on gay rights:

"A questionnaire filled out in 1989 by U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is being promoted as an insight into her views on gay rights and the law. In answers to a Texas gay rights group when she was running for a seat on Dallas City Council, she said she believed gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as straight Americans, but that she also opposed repeal of the state's sodomy law criminalizing same-sex sexual conduct." - CNN

Is lesbian sex illegal in texas?

 

[insert-username]

In Texas, there were originally laws that held homosexual conduct to be a misdemenour, punishable by fine. However, in 1998, two men were arrested for homosexual sex in Houston after a neighbour reported a "weapons disturbance" at their house (the police found no weapons, just the two guys having sex). The men were arrested, held overnight in jail, and each fined under Statue 21.06 (Homosexual Conduct). They took their case to the US Supreme Court which ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. Thus, nowhere now in the United States can sodomy laws be enforced. So, in short, lesbian sex is legal in Texas. For the time being.


I_F

 

[insert-username]

I'm aware of that. However, the Texan laws referred to 'homosexual acts', which include sodomy and lesbian sex.


I_F

 

[loquasagacious]

It seems that Miers is fine with abstinent homsexual couples????????????