Miers withdraws her nomination to Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Oct 28, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-27-miers-withdraws_x.htm

    So who is telling the truth here?
  2. Hmmm. Let me take a stab in the dark here... :twisted:

    As an aside there was a great little Freudian slip from former Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott (R-MS). He went on TV and announced (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the President is scouring the country to look for a man, woman or minority to replace Miers. 8O

    I'll add a link as soon as I find some video.
  3. It's a difference of perception so it doesn't matter.We are all just one happy family now.
  4. You wish. Bush is going to go for another moderate because he knows it will be easier to get a nominee confirmed with a large number of Dems on board and leaving the hardliners out in the cold, than it will be to get a hardliner confirmed (with a 2/3 majority) with 44 Democrats on a whipped vote.

    For the record I love the way Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, seems to have played Bush and the extremists like a fiddle. For those of you that don't pay attention to such matters, Reid went to Bush and SUGGESTED Miers as a nominee and implied that she would have support from Democrats. Once her name was mentioned, and Reid got out in front and endorsed the nomination straight away, that's when the hardliners started to go nuts- thinking that Miers was a liberal pansy if the Dem leadership was supporting her.

    Once the rabble was roused, Reid and the Democrats could have come to her aid and put her on the court. But they knew that she was woefully unqualified and that the much more sensible Judiciary Committee chairman, Arlen Spector (R-PA) along with ranking minority member, Pat Leahy (D-VT) would have to start trying to get to grips with her (in)capacity to fulfill the role. So, rather than support her, and help the shaved chimp out of a jam, they muttered a few words about her being unqualified, shuffled their feet a bit and sat back and watched the fault line that runs the length of the Republican Party open up.

    Possibly the best political Wah we will see this year!
  5. His father trusted the dems and look what it got him. That all history and Bush has been forgiven.
  6. I swear, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Care to be more specific?
  7. I thought you knew your American politics crabtastic. Every good conservative learns this story at his father's knee. It revolves around Bush 41 and the statement "Read my lips no new taxes" the rest of the story I will leave for another time.
  8. The new candidate more than likely has to be Female - she also has to be Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion..... something which Bush will have great trouble in finding me thinks.

    But it'll be interesting to monitor over the next week or so.............

  9. Yes I do, but I don't know what cypher your brain is using. Learn to communicate effectively in posts of more than two sentences (and your leviathan cut and paste jobs don't count) and we'll party like it's 1989.

    Before you bimble into yet another cul-de-sac of ill-informed nonsense, I'd like you, if possible, in the course of your post to address the following issues.

    1. His own economic advisor, Richard Darmon, (whom was subsequently appointed as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Bush41) referring to that particular line as "stupid and dangerous" on the draft copy of the speech, but how campaign manager, Roger Ailes (the chap who went on to form Fcux News) insisted that the text stay in as a means of rallying the hardliners.

    2. Be sure to explain the implications of a deep recession on tax revenues and the need to impose fiscal discipline after 8 years of Reaganomics (aka Voodoo economics- GHW Bush, 1980), paying particular attention to the mandated changes that invoking the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act would have forced; with the only other option being to shut down the federal government.

    It might be your country, but you're playing in my house mate. :wink:
  10. Nice response. Sure demonstrates your political savvy. "Nyah nyah, if you don't know then I'm not going to tell you." :roll:

    If you can't actually debate your point, then don't post on the current events forum.
  11. As is the norm, they need a grey man/woman (or minority since, if you're Trent Lott people of colour don't count as men and women- apparently). Someone who, almost by definition has no declared position on anything, no strong body of legal scholarship or anything else to suggest that they might have an opinion on anything more signficant than the "Cake vs Pie" issue.

    As much as I personally enjoy the cut and thrust (and especially a good dose of sucker-punching and bitch-slapping) of American politics; as an analyst, I have to say that the quality of American jurisprudence will continue to suffer.
  12. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    hear, hear ( waves order paper from a recumbent posn)....or to put it another way, shipmate, you guys may well be on the bridge of Spaceship Planet Earth today but that don't mean that the rest of the passengers and crew ( I make a distinction) are too chuffed about the course set....

    Le Chevre
  13. I suspect Miss Miers of playing word games based on the equivocal use of the expression "advice to the president."

    Miss Miers was W's lawyer. But she also served in the White House in a non-lawyerly capacity as well. The attorney/client privilege shields, from coerced disclosure, the things the client tells his lawyer, germane to the subject of legal representation, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The privilege also protects the substance of the legal advice that the lawyer gives the client.

    On the other hand, no such privilege attaches to whatever Miss Miers and Pres. Bush may have said to each other, for instance, on the topic of what weight to accord memoranda from the FBI, or other other security/intelligence agencies, prior to 9/11, bearing on reports of expected use by terrorists of hijacked airplanes as weapons. Such "advice" may have been rendered in "private," rather than, say, in the bleachers at Yankee Stadium. However, those circumstances are not sufficient to invoke the attorney/client privilege.

    Furthermore, the attorney/client privilege is waivable by the client. I see nothing inherently improper in asking Miss Miers to solicit a waiver from her client. Depending on the subject of the representation, it might not be improper for the Senate to draw an adverse inference from the president's refusal to waive. (Of course, depending on the particular circumstances, the president might be morally justified in refusing to make any such waiver. The Senate might exceed the bounds of moral propriety in holding the president's refusal against the nominee. Because the context, consisting of the occasion for seeking and giving legal advice, is left unspecified, we can't judge the merits of any demand for a waiver, assuming for the sake of argument that it ever really happened.)
  14. I just love the way that in America the type of justice you get depends not upon the merits of the case but on whether the president that appointed your judges was backed by religious nutters or not. :roll: