Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Concerned Women for America
The CWA weighs in on Miers:
But Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America, is expressing "guarded optimism" at this stage. LaRue says she is willing to give Miers "the benefit of the doubt" right now because President Bush has thus far selected federal court nominees who are committed to the written Constitution. "Whether we can support her will depend on what we learn from her record and the hearing process," the CWA spokeswoman says. The president has asked senators to "fairly and thoroughly" consider Miers' nomination, saying he is confident they will find her a "superb choice."
Sadly, the CWA are expressing a more principled approach than some on the left so far. The dialog I'm hearing from the left is whether we should oppose Miers or whether she's more or less the best we can hope for. There are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of Miers -- she's a Bush crony with little relevant legal experience. The Senate's job is to determine whether she is fit to serve as a justice. Here's where I join the CWA and urge the Senate to fairly and thoroughly examine Miers to determine whether she is qualified for the high court. If she's not qualified, we should oppose her.
Let's gather facts, then take a position.
10 Comments:
would she get this reception if she was a guy? I dont think so.
she is not a judge. never was a judge. she is in bush's pocket.
if this was a guy everyone would be outraged.
By 
, at
9:13 AM
You're full of beans these days, Tard Patch.
Is she qualified? It doesn't look like, but I know almost nothing about this woman. I want to learn about her before I form an opinion.
she is a crony, this is the lazy pick.
By , at
9:22 AM
Old Tard's even more of a cynic than I am.
By , at
9:57 AM
I just remember what a heck of a job bush crony brownie did as the head of FEMA
By , at
10:21 AM
I know that the reasonable approach is to get the facts, be fair, wait and see... But you know what? Fuck that. I don't know anything about this woman, but I know enough to be suspicious when someone that close to the President is being nominated for the Supreme Court. Based on past behavior, I have no reason to trust that this administration will pick a qualified candidate over someone who's done them a lot of favors.
By , at
12:44 PM
Hammer, listen to the woman.
By , at
1:52 PM
Listen? To a woman? If I did, would it be praiseworthy?
I'm less concerned with the fact that she has never been a judge than many people seem to be. Plenty of justices never sat on the bench before going to the SC. What worries me is that she claimed W was one of the most brilliant men she has ever met. That makes her either a horrible liar or someone who needs to get out more. Neither bodes well for her time on the court. On the other hand, what is the alternative? Fillibuster every pick until '06 in hopes of winning back the Senate? That's not likely to work very well. That leaves hoping she is another Souter or taking solace in the fact that she is 60 years old and will be replaced long before Roberts. Anybody have a better suggestion?
Thurgood Marshall was only a judge for abot 3 years before becoming a justice. Of course, he had a lot of other relevant experience.
What troubles me about Miers is that she seems to have no relevant experience.
