|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
that was a scary picture of her.
weird selection if you ask me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seemingly, she's very loyal.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
that was a scary picture of her.
weird selection if you ask me. |
OK, I'll bite...Why do you think it was a "weird selection?"
And, shouldn't a SC justice's looks be last on the list of things to consider? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
that was a scary picture of her.
weird selection if you ask me. |
OK, I'll bite...Why do you think it was a "weird selection?"
And, shouldn't a SC justice's looks be last on the list of things to consider? |
Highlights from Miers' biography:
born in Dallas, Texas on August 10, 1945.
named president of the Dallas Bar Association in 1985
served a two-year term on Dallas City Council
hired as general counsel to Governor-elect George Bush in 1994
credited with cleaning up the scandal-ridden Texas Lottery Commission during her voluntary term as chairwoman between 1995 and 2000
elected first female president of Dallas law firm Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell in March 1996
appointed Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff in 2003
No judicial experience. Although maybe she did organize a few horse shows here or there...
...seriously, Wannago, why is this woman a good choice? The other thing that disturbs me is that she is way too close to the President. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| ...seriously, Wannago, why is this woman a good choice? The other thing that disturbs me is that she is way too close to the President. |
You mean other than her being a Sith apprentice of course.
It least a long time ago in a galaxy far far away there were only two at a time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Harry Reid and Charles Schumer back her. Reid reportedly proposed her name to Bush.
I saw video where Schumer explained that her not having experience on any bench was an asset, as she would bring fresh perspectives to the Court.
The reactions here are exactly that, reactions...knee-jerk reactions, without understanding what apparently brought this nomination about. "She's way too close to Bush." "It's FEMA all over again." "She's an evil Sith," etc.
Please do not ever serve on my jury. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Justices need not be judges. Many have been lawyers, so have a background in law, but not on the bench. I've seen nothing so far to discredit or disqualify her.
Quite frankly, I'm relieved Bush has been so moderate in both his choices. The choices could have been a whole lot worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| The reactions here are exactly that, reactions...knee-jerk reactions, without understanding what apparently brought this nomination about. |
She has little political record or trail. Therefore, she is less likely to be blocked. In addition, given that Gonzales is waist-deep in Abu Ghraib, Bush wanted to put in one of his own without completely stalling his agenda. Are those the kind of rationales that are knee-jerk?
| Ya-Ta Boy wrote: |
| Quite frankly, I'm relieved Bush has been so moderate in both his choices. The choices could have been a whole lot worse. |
I agree with you about John Roberts. Excellent selection. This woman? Not so much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Please do not ever serve on my jury. |
I was simply being humorous. I don't expect judges to look like Jenna Jameson. But I'm glad people are discussing her qualifications now.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
| But I'm glad people are discussing her qualifications now. |
Judging from reactions to several issues on this thread, I'd venture to say that many of the posters here only want seasoned career bureaucrats and politicians in Washington.
Education or non-Washington experience seem to count for little. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| The reactions here are exactly that, reactions...knee-jerk reactions, without understanding what apparently brought this nomination about. |
She has little political record or trail. Therefore, she is less likely to be blocked. In addition, given that Gonzales is waist-deep in Abu Ghraib, Bush wanted to put in one of his own without completely stalling his agenda. Are those the kind of rationales that are knee-jerk? |
As I said, my information is that Reid threw her name into the hat. And Schumer seems to think that her lack of experience behind any bench is a good thing. Schumer. Feinstein also seems to be behind her.
Like many here, I know very little about her. Given that Democratic leaders seem to be happy with this choice, and given that I also heard she backed Gore for president in 1988, I'd say it looks like we have a nice moderate candidate before us -- someone who is not rigidly fixated on anything, which I like. And, in any case, I'm willing to wait for the hearings before passing judgement on her.
In the States, it's the flip side of what we see on this thread, incidentally. Democrats are apparently open to the idea, while Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh are extremely suspicious and asking about her ideological bona fides, talking about cronyism, etc...so yes, this is a knee-jerk reaction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not the only one concerned about her history and her ability. For the record, it's not political experience I want, its experience in the judiciary and behind the bench. While I don't think people should be forbidden if they do not have such experience, it should raise questions. I don't ascribe to the view that not having such experience = outsider = good candidate.
And, Gopher, if you're suspicious that I'm suspicious of the choice simply because it's Bush's, you're dead right. I've given him the benefit of the doubt many a time, and only feel justified for one (his Kyoto Protocol policy). I see nothing remarkable about this woman, outside of the fact that a handful of Democrats like her.
From the Washington Post
| Quote: |
The President's Choice
Tuesday, October 4, 2005; Page A22
IN REPLACING Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, President Bush could have opted for ideological confrontation and an automatic confirmation battle. His nomination of Harriet Miers, his White House counsel, may save the country from that ugly outcome. Ms. Miers, like Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., is not known as an ideologue or a cultural warrior. A corporate lawyer, she served as president of the State Bar of Texas and was active in the American Bar Association, an organization of which many conservatives are suspicious. In her bar activities, she pushed for greater legal representation for the poor. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) suggested that Mr. Bush consider someone like Ms. Miers. Mr. Bush's decision, particularly in light of the heat he is now taking from the right, seems like a significant gesture of conciliation.
That's the good news. It also should be said that Ms. Miers's background is not insubstantial: She has managed a major law firm and been a prominent corporate litigator; she served on the Texas Lottery Commission and the Dallas City Council. Her combination of bar activity and legal practice calls to mind that of the late Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. There's something to be said for a diversity of legal experience on the court; not every justice has to be a former federal appellate judge and constitutional scholar.
And yet, Ms. Miers is not the most evidently qualified nominee available to the president -- far from it. Her clearest distinction is her service and loyalty to Mr. Bush. She has served on his White House staff from the inception of his administration; she was on his transition team when he became governor of Texas; she has done personal legal work for him as well. She and Mr. Bush have a long and close relationship -- and this is an administration that puts an enormous premium on political loyalty.
As her confirmation process gets underway, Ms. Miers will have to dispel the suspicion that such loyalty counts more than quality. In a profile late last year, Legal Times suggested that she struggled to make decisions while serving as deputy chief of staff and tended to get bogged down in details. These are not ideal qualities for a justice. She has no record as a judge or as a scholar. Her views and approach to the law are largely unknown.
For all these reasons, assessing Ms. Miers will be a complicated task. The Senate Judiciary Committee managed to conduct a relatively dignified and serious process for Chief Justice Roberts. But the challenge here will be different. The Senate needs to satisfy itself not only that Ms. Miers has responsible attitudes toward the interpretation of law but also that Mr. Bush's faith that she belongs on the nation's highest court is well placed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| And, Gopher, if you're suspicious that I'm suspicious of the choice simply because it's Bush's, you're dead right. I've given him the benefit of the doubt many a time, and only feel justified for one (his Kyoto Protocol policy). I see nothing remarkable about this woman, outside of the fact that a handful of Democrats like her. |
My initial reaction was the same as yours, and for the same reasons. His White House counsel? I asked.
Then I heard that not just a handful of Democrats like her, but a handful of leading Democrats who I trust like her (Schumer never hesitates to criticize when he wants to, and he says he sees no issues with her nomination), and then I decided that maybe there's something to her after all.
After all, she graduated law school, she was a litigator, she was president of a firm, and she led the Bar somewhere in Texas if not the Texas Bar (at this point, I don't know which), no? No mean achievements.
So let's wait for the hearings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Harry Reid and Charles Schumer back her. Reid reportedly proposed her name to Bush.
I saw video where Schumer explained that her not having experience on any bench was an asset, as she would bring fresh perspectives to the Court.
The reactions here are exactly that, reactions...knee-jerk reactions, without understanding what apparently brought this nomination about. "She's way too close to Bush." "It's FEMA all over again." "She's an evil Sith," etc.
Please do not ever serve on my jury. |
Oh, heck, I don't know... I guess interpreting law for a nation is the same as advocating it for a client and requires no gradual process of application of skills and judgement. Any teacher will make a good principal, for example! Heck, think I'll buy a racehorse and make the groom the jockey. Or, how about we let a failed businessman run the country?
This is cronyism at it's worst. Well, not true. She actually has experience with the law. Can't beat Brown for cronyism. More importantly, she is a malleable entity. I posit that's why she was chosen. She is a long-time friend of Bush and seems to owe much of her current status to him directly. That is a dangerous thing. She is human and will feel the pressure of the people who put her in office as she's had no time whatsoever to develop her own sense of interpreting the Constitution from the perspective of having no constituency/client. WE are her clients, but she has never experienced that.
Really, from lawyer to Supreme Court justice? We already have an inexperienced Chief Justice. How in the world you promote a mid-level federal judge to be Chief Justice over people with years of experience on the court is beyond me... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
