God Save Georges Brain

[nbfcfireman]

I am by no means religious, but I think that "god" skipped president bush recently when he was handing out brains.

I dont have any problem with Bush appointing a woman to the Supreme Ct first of all. My problem is with the fact that this lady, who I am sure is an excellent attorney and would make an excellent judge, has never been a judge.

We dont let model airplane pilots fly passenger jets without taking the classes and learning the stuff and practicing on smaller jets that may only hold a few people.

However, we are now going to let someone be one of the most powerfull judges in the county that has never even been one of the least powerful judges in the county.

Remeber...this lady, along with the other nut that was appointed, will have the power to influence and shape the laws and the life of millions of people world wide.
Why do I think that this is going to be BAD. And not just for the liberals but for everyone!!!

I just fealt the need to rant for a minute...Fell free to rip me a new one now for being an unpatriotic liberal yuppy

[Steamer]

It's by no means the first time it's happened. A list of the ones that I could find:
1. William Rehnquist Asst. U.S. Attorney General 1972-2005 Nixon (Assoc., 1972), Reagan (Chief, 1986)
2. Lewis Powell President of the American Bar ***'n, Private Practice 1972-1987 Nixon
3. Abe Fortas Private Practice 1965-1969 Johnson
4. Byron White Deputy U.S. Attorney General 1962-1993 Kennedy
5. Arthur Goldberg U.S. Secretary of Labor 1962-1965 Kennedy
6. Earl Warren Governor of California 1953-1969 Eisenhower
7. Tom Clark U.S. Attorney General 1949-1967 Truman
8. Harold Burton U.S. Senator 1945-1958 Truman
9. Robert Jackson U.S. Attorney General 1941-1954 F. Roosevelt
10. James Francis Byrnes U.S. Senator 1941-1942 F. Roosevelt
11. William O. Douglas Chairman of the S.E.C. 1939-1975 F. Roosevelt
12. Felix Frankfurter Asst. U.S. Attorney, Asst. Secretary of War, Prof. of Law at Harvard 1939-1962 F. Roosevelt
13. Stanley Forman Reed U.S. Solicitor General 1938-1957 F. Roosevelt
14. Owen Josephus Roberts Special Counsel in "Teapot Dome" investigation and trials 1930-1945 Hoover
15. Harlan Fiske Stone U.S. Attorney General 1925-1946 Coolidge (Assoc., 1925), F. Roosevelt (Chief, 1941)
16. Pierce Butler County Attorney, Private Practice 1923-1939 Harding
17. George Sutherland U.S. Senator 1922-1938 Harding
18. Louis Brandeis Private Practice 1916-1939 Wilson
19. James Clark McReynolds U.S. Attorney General 1914-1941 Wilson
20. Charles Evans Hughes Governor of New York, U.S. Secretary of State 1910-1916, 1930-1941 Taft (Assoc., 1910), Hoover (Chief, 1930)
21. William Henry Moody U.S. Attorney General 1906-1910 T. Roosevelt
22. George Shiras, Jr Private Practice 1892-1903 Harrison
23. Melville Fuller Private Practice 1888-1910 Cleveland
24. Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar U.S. Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Senator 1888-1893 Cleveland
25. Joseph Philo Bradley Private Practice 1870-1892 Grant
26. Salmon P. Chase U.S. Treasury Secretary 1864-1873 Lincoln
27. Samuel Freeman Miller Private Practice 1862-1890 Lincoln
28. Noah Haynes Swayne U.S. Attorney for Ohio, Ohio Legislator 1862-1881 Lincoln
29. Nathan Clifford Maine & U.S. Attorney General 1858-1881 Buchanan
30. John Archibald Campbell Alabama Legislator 1853-1861 Pierce
31. Benjamin Robbins Curtis Massachusetts Legislator 1851-1857 Fillmore
32. John McKinley U.S. Senator 1838-1852 Van Buren
33. Roger Brooke Taney Maryland & U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Treasury Secretary 1836-1864 Jackson
34. Henry Baldwin U.S. Congressman 1830-1844 Jackson
35. Joseph Story Speaker of Mass. House of Reps., U.S. Congressman 1812-1845 Madison
36. John Marshall U.S. Secretary of State 1801-1835 Adams
37. Bushrod Washington Virginia House of Delegates, Reporter for Virginia Court of Appeals 1799-1829 Adams
38. William Paterson Governor of New Jersey 1793-1806 Washington
39. James Wilson Delegate to 1st & 2nd Continental Congress, Co-Drafter of U.S. Constitution 1789-1798 Washington
40. John Jay President of the Continental Congress, U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs 1789-1795 Washington
41. John Rutledge Governor of South Carolina 1789-1791, 1795 Washington

You'll also notice that since the Depression era, Democrats appointed 10 Justices without judicial experience versus 3 times for Republicans, so rant away.

Out of curiosity, why do you consider Roberts a "nut"?

[nbfcfireman]

It is wrong in both cases dems or reps. no matter who does it. the us judicial system should not be a testing ground for judges. WHere did you get that list. I was aware of a few others but didnt know a list of that length existed. On the nuts comment -I recind that- however. I do see strong religious views as nuts

[Steamer]

It is wrong in both cases dems or reps. no matter who does it. the us judicial system should not be a testing ground for judges. WHere did you get that list. I was aware of a few others but didnt know a list of that length existed. On the nuts comment -I recind that- however. I do see strong religious views as nuts

You brought up the liberal issue, and since the term liberal is far more related to the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, I merely pointed out that it was done far more frequently by the Democrats.

While I agree it can be controversial, it seems that when backgrounds are properly done, the system allows it to be done without undue risk. You can't make someone "believe or not believe" in anything. A Supreme Court Justice has to disassociate themselves from their personal beliefs, and rule on issues based on the Constitution and how it applies to the law or case under review. It's when judges fail to do their jobs as the Constitution intends and become judicial activists that things go wrong. Case in point was the recent case involving eminent domain. This is all a different discussion however.

As for the list, I found it through several legal websites like Findlaw.com

[EFD840]

Just a couple of random thoughts...

First, some very respected justices are on the list Steamer posted so obviously previous experience doesn't always equate to job performance.

Second, the beliefs and values of appointees that haven't served a long time as judges are often easier to determine. This is particularly true of nominees that come from the political area. They will usually have a proven record of taking positions on issues. Canons of judicial ethics usually keep judges at all levels from taking public positions.

Finally, it isn't a bad thing to have someone that's lived in the real world on the court. The appointment of judges is IMHO the most important role a president performs. The decisions those panels render impact our lives every single day but a judge that 'comes up through the ranks' may well have been detached from the real world for 20+ years by the time they're appointed to the court. It is much like what you find in the academic world. If you've ever been to college, you know what I mean. Having someone on the panel that remembers what it is like to work for a living can go a long way towards injecting real world reason into the bodies' deliberations.

[DennisTheMenace]

From today's letters to the editor in the Washington Post

Before Harriet Miers went to the White House, she was listed in the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most powerful lawyers and one of the 50 most powerful female lawyers in the United States. She held top positions in the American Bar Association and chaired the board of editors of the ABA Journal, a publication that focuses on all aspects of the law, including the supposed lofty and "different" issues relating to constitutional law.

Members of the Texas bar elected Ms. Miers as their president, and she helped build bridges between the law profession and the community, including performing important work on access to justice for the poor.

These credentials surely put her in the top 1 percent of the million-plus lawyers in the country in terms of distinction and accomplishments.

Ms. Miers has built a law practice, managed a major law firm, handled many and varied cases in state and federal courts, served the profession at the highest level and was an elected official of one of our largest cities.

If these experiences do not qualify her for the Supreme Court, then that court has become an elitist club open to only a few with a narrow set of certain credentials. If this is true, it's a sad day for the court, our nation and the voice of reason.

SUSAN L. KARAMANIAN

Associate Dean for International
and Comparative Legal Studies
George Washington University Law School
Washington

I could not agree more. You don't have to have been a Battalion Chief to be a great Chief of the Department, you just need the right training, experiance and temperment, nothing that I have seen yet implies that Ms. Miers does not have those qualifications when it comes to sitting on the Supreme Court.

[jensam433]

the us judicial system should not be a testing ground for judges.

What do you call a failed lawyer?
Your Honor.

[DennisTheMenace]

What do you call a failed lawyer?
Your Honor.

[Bones42]

I was never a firefighter until I became one.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

It is wrong in both cases dems or reps. no matter who does it. the us judicial system should not be a testing ground for judges. WHere did you get that list. I was aware of a few others but didnt know a list of that length existed. On the nuts comment -I recind that- however. I do see strong religious views as nuts

And I view people with strong anti-religious views as nuts.

Guess we're even up, huh?

[nbfcfireman]

oh I am not anti religion, what ever floats your boat, ya know. I just am believe that religious zelots have done more to harm the world than they has to help the world.
But dont call me anti religion, I am only anti religion for myself, If it gives you the warm and fuzzy's then do it.

I would say dont express it in your political views BUT that is impossible. I express my athiest views in my political leanings and religios people will do the like.

I think that there is a median that can be reached though, one that does not impinge on any moderates views. The extremes views, liberal and conservative are one in the same, they do no one any good. But what is extreme to me might not be to another.

Thats all i am saying. Ill now let this thread run and I am sure change into calling me a devil worshiper and mutual bashing of ALL...hahahahaha

[Steamer]

Well, let's see...bitching about Bush choosing a person that wasn't a judge for an Associate Justice position fizzled, so let's go for bitching about religion. That's always good for a pointless argument.

From two separate posts:

I just fealt the need to rant for a minute...Fell free to rip me a new one now for being an unpatriotic liberal yuppy

Ill now let this thread run and I am sure change into calling me a devil worshiper and mutual bashing of ALL...hahahahaha

You're either intentionally trying to stir ****, or you're a masochist. In either case, I'm not taking the bait.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Neither am I, Steve. The last thing we need on here now is another troll.

[doughesson]

If being a Judge were a requirement for sitting on the Supreme Court,then how much time had you had as a firefighter before getting on your first department?
Before someone asks,I was DC I and II qualified in the Navy before I got out and 9 years later decided to try my hand at being a volunteer firefighter.Some experience and I have to translate what is being said to me to terms that I learned but it works out well.

[doughesson]

Even better:What do you call the lowest graduate at medical school?
Doctor.

What do you call a failed lawyer?
Your Honor.

[dmleblanc]

Well, the liberal Democrats need to recognize that the only reason we have gone down the list to Miers is because they refused to consider the first two candidates that were offered. If you keep attacking the qualified candidates, using every means at your disposal to discredit the candidate, put a negative spin on the candidate, dig up every parking ticket and overdue library book they've ever had and throw it in front of the media until they are forced to throw in the towel, well, yes, sooner or later you're going to have to work your way down the list to the less qualified candidates.

We can work our way down to the 86th candidate on the list and the Dems will attack, discredit, put a full time team of investigators on that person's case to find any impropriety or bad decision that person has ever made, and ultimately condemn that candidate as the the person who will bring the downfall of the Republic if they are placed on the bench.

Sooner or later they're going to have to accept somebody.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a great fan of Bush these days, but there just simply is not a candidate he can name who the Democrats will not rip to shreds....so if the Democrats so rabidly disapprove of the first 10 qualified candidates, why would they be surprised when #11 is not as good a choice as #1 was?

[Steamer]

Sooner or later they're going to have to accept somebody.

I keep waiting for my phone to ring.

[medicmaster]

NBFC...you need to realize that you cannot come on here and discuss anything that might imply that George Bush is an idiot...there are some around here that will do nothing but jump on your back and start crying liberalism.

Even if the guy can't speak correctly, hires his unqualified friends, denies any involvement in something that makes him look bad, or any other million things he does to prove that he has no business running the country, you will ALWAYS be a liberal, left-wing freak to them...even if you don't consider yourself a Democrat or even DO AGREE with other Republican positions. That is what conservatives do...they refuse to see something from someone else's point of view, and only accept their own beliefs...anyone who disagrees with them is just worthless, stupid, scum.

With that being said...appointing Meirs was typical W cronyism at its best!

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

>>That is what conservatives do...they refuse to see something from someone else's point of view, and only accept their own beliefs...anyone who disagrees with them is just worthless, stupid, scum. <<

This is what conservatives do?

What about the discarded pile of female victims left by the liberal messiah, Bill Clinton. Every one of those women's lives were destroyed by that scum and then they were victimized a second time when they were trashed in the press by his minions.

What about crap like trying to bring John Robert's adopted son into the news during his lead up to the confirmation hearings? What about trying to bring his wife's religious views into it?

What about idiots like Chuckie Schumer trashing a legal genius like Judge Allito? He has a track record of moderate views and decisions. He is, by all accounts, a legal giant-as qualified as any person sitting there today. But Schumer brands him an extremist because he was nominated by a Republican Pres..

I could go on, but I am getting too angry. Scorched earth is a liberal game, pal.

[medicmaster]

George...you're fun to debate with!

"What about the discarded pile of female victims left by the liberal messiah, Bill Clinton. Every one of those women's lives were destroyed by that scum and then they were victimized a second time when they were trashed in the press by his minions."

Okay, I'll go with you on this one...as a public figure his actions were wrong. Definately not appropriate behavior for the leader of the free world...However...while he was getting his knob slobbed in the Oval Office, it did not affect how this country operated. (Let's also not forget that he was impeached...and acquitted by a republican controlled House.) I believe the person who started this thread was commenting on the fact that George Bush may not have made the best decision when it came to appointing a supreme court justice candidate who has no experience as a judge...not who is banging who.

As to the media onslought of John Robert's family, and Chuckie Schumer...it is all typical political game....wether it be the "liberals" or the "conservatives"...both are equally as guilty at one time or another.

Don't get yourself too worked up about...wouldn't want you to have a stroke.

Peace Out!