PDA

View Full Version : The Swing Vote


bu9418
10-05-2005, 07:59 PM
The Swing Vote
Yesterday George W. Bush made his second appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. As I had feared, this appointment was made in the name of what I will call political diversity. It appears that more than half of the qualified potential candidates were disqualified because they didn't fit the mold of the politically correct definition of diversity. And so you have Harriet Miers as your next Associate Justice of the United States. Was this a bad pick? I don't think so.
We have the right screaming today because Bush didn't appoint a known jurist, and known Scalia and Thomas conservative. I am not a pundit, so I guess my opinion doesn't matter. Bill Kristol lamented the pick. Ann Coulter said the pick was mediocre, and Rush wanted to know why Bush didn't drive this pick home with a known jurist.

What people are not considering is that Harriet Miers is well known by George W. Bush. Bush knows what the court is getting. Maybe the rest of the country doesn't know, but Bush does. We know she donated to the 1988 Gore campaign. We know she was once a Democrat. We also know she left the Democrat Party and although she donated to that party, she voted republican in the same year.


She left the Texas ABA after they took a stand to support a woman's right to choose. In the height of crime in Texas, when a person's right to bear arms came into question, Harriet Miers came down on the side of the individual, stating that a person's right to bear arms should never be sacrificed in order to fight crime. She is also an evangelical Christian who is a Bible literalist. Which means she interprets the written word, and doesn't conject personal opinions.

Points, or Counterpoints, I have a few questions I wouldn't mind seeing answered.
When did the Supreme Court come to be known as the court that decides the social issues of this country? I thought the role of the court was limited? To apply the constitution to the cases before them. Period. Am I wrong?
When did a stance on abortion become the main qualification for any judicial nominee? And why are people unnerved by anyone's stance?
What do they mean by 'The Swing Vote'? How does a seat on Justice Court, whether it be the Supreme Court, an Apellate Court or the Supreme Court of any State of our Union become a swing vote? A Justice has one role; to apply the written law to the case before him or her. There is no so-called political 'swing' necessary. Anyone who disagrees with that assessment has no business partaking in any confirmation process, including a General Election.

Based upon what I have read, Harriet Miers will make a fine Associate Justice of the United States. If she isn't, then I would blindly assume that either the United States Senate will do its job(s) and perform a thorough confirmation process or the United States House of Representatives will exercise their Constitutional authority to impeach this, and any other Justice who extends his or her responsibility to creating law from the bench.

Mark Bureau
http://www.markbureau.us http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif

papajaxxx
10-05-2005, 08:28 PM
Excellent post bu9418:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Points, or Counterpoints, I have a few questions I wouldn't mind seeing answered.
When did the Supreme Court come to be known as the court that decides the social issues of this country? I thought the role of the court was limited? To apply the constitution to the cases before them. Period. Am I wrong?
When did a stance on abortion become the main qualification for any judicial nominee? And why are people unnerved by anyone's stance?
What do they mean by 'The Swing Vote'? How does a seat on Justice Court, whether it be the Supreme Court, an Apellate Court or the Supreme Court of any State of our Union become a swing vote? A Justice has one role; to apply the written law to the case before him or her. There is no so-called political 'swing' necessary. Anyone who disagrees with that assessment has no business partaking in any confirmation process, including a General Election.
[/QUOTE]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">To apply the constitution to the cases before them. Period. Am I wrong?
[/QUOTE]

Not in my opinion!

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">When did a stance on abortion become the main qualification for any judicial nominee?[/QUOTE]

When the Dems made it one.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">How does a seat on Justice Court, whether it be the Supreme Court, an Apellate Court or the Supreme Court of any State of our Union become a swing vote?[/QUOTE]


Another phrase coined by the Dems.

The Dems want to change the rules to fit their situation because they cannot win according to the &quot;real rules&quot;. *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/no.gif

petelst1171
10-06-2005, 07:06 AM
Both excellent posts, and you're right, papa - the Dems can't win by playing according to the rules, so they have made the judiciary their lawmaking body! It's an &quot;end-around&quot; play to avoid having loses in the legislature.

The Dems are bankrupt on the &quot;field of ideas&quot; and the courts are their last hold to power. They're even losing ground with minorities who are finally realizing that they (the minorities) are losers with Demorats in power.


(I know, I accidently misspelled &quot;Democrats&quot; - but realized my mistake and liked it - so I left it.)

Bigdog
10-06-2005, 07:08 AM
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">How does a seat on Justice Court, whether it be the Supreme Court, an Apellate Court or the Supreme Court of any State of our Union become a swing vote?[/QUOTE]

It happens when those who find they can't win at the ballot box try to &quot;rule&quot; through the courts.
We don't need political balance on the courts. Politics has no legitimate place in the courts. To be sure, all judges have political beliefs which they are free to express in their polling place. On the bench, their job is to make ruling that say &quot;it will be this way because the law says so&quot;, not &quot;it will be this way because I am the judge&quot;.

myownthinker
10-06-2005, 07:23 PM
I dont know why anybody would be skeptical, if Bush appointed her then she will be very good.

papajaxxx
10-06-2005, 07:45 PM
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">I dont know why anybody would be skeptical, if Bush appointed her then she will be very good. [/QUOTE]

MOT: We don't agree on much, but I think we are on the same side here. It kinda scares me! Just kiddin' http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

billybigrigger
10-09-2005, 03:34 PM
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Both excellent posts, and you're right, papa - the Dems can't win by playing according to the rules, so they have made the judiciary their lawmaking body! It's an &quot;end-around&quot; play to avoid having loses in the legislature.
[/QUOTE]

With 7 of the nine justices appointed by Republicans I fail to see how we can pin this on the Democrats.

Old Man
10-09-2005, 09:20 PM
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">With 7 of the nine justices appointed by Republicans I fail to see how we can pin this on the Democrats.[/QUOTE]

Because they were appointed with Democratic controlled Senates. We knew we couldn't get a strict constructionalist through so we tried to find a &quot;moderate&quot; who might rule sensibly. With O'Conner we got a moderate who became the swing vote often because nobody ever knew which way she would rule most of the time. Unfortuanately, most of the time she agreed that the &quot;modern interpretation&quot; of the 14th was established law and ruled fairly in her mind but contrary to the original intent the founders had for this nation.

But, we may soon have a court were there is rarely a swing vote. Or we may find that both of this Presidents appointments will be &quot;swing votes.&quot; You are correct though that our picks haven't been dependable. I more faith in this President selections than previous ones though.