Hello Family ... Good Morning !!! :love:

I was just listening to the news and they were talking about Bush's Supreme Court Nomination ... Harriet Miers ... they said she's never been a judge?!!!

How many supreme court justices, have never been judges? Is this normal?

What's really going on?

:heart:

Destee

Now see. Bush done lost his **** mind. How in the hell do you appoint someone who's NEVER been a judge to be on the FEDERAL..let alone ANY...Supreme Court?

No one can be this **** stupid. He should be impeached. But, he wouldn't be because republicans have the majority in the House and Senate.

Actually Judge Rehnquist was not a Judge before his appointment, it is a bit common, around the capital to elect lawyers to the court and not judges. There have been quite a few in courts history.

Actually Judge Rehnquist was not a Judge before his appointment, it is a bit common, around the capital to elect lawyers to the court and not judges. There have been quite a few in courts history.
trudat. you don't have to have bench experience to be a justice. it's not un common.

i have a problem with the fact that she's childless and never married and a born again. how much life experience would she have?
if she follows her beliefs, she has NO sex life.
i don't want someone like that on the bench.

Actually Judge Rehnquist was not a Judge before his appointment, it is a bit common, around the capital to elect lawyers to the court and not judges. There have been quite a few in courts history.

Thank you Brother MANASIAC ... i didn't know.

The top judge in the country, a job for life, does not need judge experience?

Only in america ...

:heart:

Destee

Actually Judge Rehnquist was not a Judge before his appointment, it is a bit common, around the capital to elect lawyers to the court and not judges. There have been quite a few in courts history.

Good point. But, I would rather a judge for the Federal Supreme Court have some experience at the state level first.

I believe there is a different mindset for judges than lawyers who just try cases. The motivation for lawyers and judges are different.

Good point. But, I would rather a judge for the Federal Supreme Court have some experience at the state level first.

I believe there is a different mindset for judges than lawyers who just try cases. The motivation for lawyers and judges are different.

I'm with you Money ... dere's a fly in dat butta milk ...

:heart:

Destee

This is just B/S. He's just doing what he wants to do. The sad part is, this country impeached Clinton because he was getting a little in the Oval office and lied about it, but Bush isn't being impeached for getting thousands of people killed over a lie. That right there shows how much this country cares about justice. This lady should not be judging anyone if she's never even had experience.

This is just B/S. He's just doing what he wants to do. The sad part is, this country impeached Clinton because he was getting a little in the Oval office and lied about it, but Bush isn't being impeached for getting thousands of people killed over a lie. That right there shows how much this country cares about justice. This lady should not be judging anyone if she's never even had experience.
Technically, I don't think that Bush ever lied "under oath". Clinton did. They could care less about what he lied about, the fact that he lied in court proceeding is the issue. That is the key to getting impeached. Bush can say that his people gave him "invalid intelligence" (which may or may not be true), and he would not get impeached for it. Everything depends on loopholes and technicalities.

Technically, I don't think that Bush ever lied "under oath". Clinton did. They could care less about what he lied about, the fact that he lied in court proceeding is the issue. That is the key to getting impeached. Bush can say that his people gave him "invalid intelligence" (which may or may not be true), and he would not get impeached for it. Everything depends on loopholes and technicalities.

You might be correct in this observation. Still the question must be asked, why was Clinton brought before a court on such a petty concern, when Bush has not for a far more serious matter? As far as Harriet Miers is concerned, she is woefully unqualified in the eyes of most political observers (democrats and republicans).

Under withering attack from conservatives, President Bush abandoned his push to put loyalist Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court and promised a quick replacement Thursday. Democrats accused him of bowing to the “radical right wing of the Republican Party.”

The White House said Miers had withdrawn because of senators’ demands to see internal documents related to her role as counsel to the president. But politics played a larger role: Bush’s conservative backers had doubts about her ideological purity, and Democrats had little incentive to help the nominee or the embattled GOP president.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9837151/

Dang...wonder what was in them documents ???? :thinking:

:peace: Peace ~