Text 15905, 113 rader
Skriven 2005-10-08 07:51:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN HULL
Ärende: Storm brewing
=====================
On 10-08-05, JOHN HULL said to TIM RICHARDSON:



TR>> I didn't say "she's not qualified". I said "There must be someone out
JH>> there
TR>> who's a lot more qualified than this person."


JH>> The implication was that she was less than qualified.



TR> You're reading into my words things that aren't there.


JH>> Obviously, if you
JH>> think there is somebody else "a lot more qualified" it means you don't
JH>> think SHE is sufficiently qualified.


TR> *Any* attorney is "qualified" to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. There are
TR> *Attorney's* who have judicial experience, who understand the difference
TR> between `legislating from the bench', and just applying the Constitution
TR> to what comes before them.


JH>No, every attorney is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.


Yeah.....they are, John. I mean you wouldn't appoint a pharmacist, or a ditch
digger, or a house wife. You appoint someone who's a `trained' attorney.


Ann Coulter, for instance, is not just a loud-mouthed columnist who hammers
the liberals with her sarcastic manner. She's also a trained `Constitutional'
attorney, who by the way, clerked for one of the Supreme Court Justices
(Douglas, I think).


I'm not suggesting she be appointed, but she's every bit as qualified, if not
more so, than Meirs. She's just one example. I'm sure there are many, many
more out there.


TR> We need to know we aren't going to wind up with someone who sees
TR> *umbras* and
TR> *penumbras* in the Constitution. We deserve to know a person is going to
JH>be
TR> the very best choice for the job.


JH>And just exactly what is it that you see that makes you think that will
JH>happen? There *are* no guarantees beyond what we *think* someone will do.
JH>A judicial history and a paper trail doesn't mean diddly when it comes to
JH>that.

TR>All that other shit *you* read into it, and are trying to attribute to me.


JH>Just what am I reading into it?  That the president has
JH>the right to nominate anyone he wants to?


The president has the right to nominate anyone he chooses.


We are talking about a position that will have an effect on the United States
for many years.


I think the president could have made a little better choice.


Where I had heard of William Rhenquist, and knew a little bit about him at
least, I've never heard of Meirs.


Just `the president' *knowing* she's the right choice isn't exactly
comforting. I think a lot of the `rest' of the country could feel a little
better about her.


JH>That prior experience as a
JH>judge is not a requirement? How about that she is the one who vetted
JH>everyone else on the short list that Bush was working from, including
JH>Justice Roberts? Maybe that as White House Chief Counsel, she has to deal
JH>with questions of constitutionality "nearly every day" as Bush said.  That
JH>maybe the hardliners are bitching because they didn't get to have their
JH>knife fight with the Democrats, eh, and it really has nothing at all to do


JH>with Miers? In all of this, you still haven't said who you think is *more*
JH>qualified and why.  After all, if she is such a poor choice, surely you
JH>have someone else in mind you feel would be better, right?



Sometimes people can say things and they `mean' exactly what they said: I
think Bush could have made a little better choice than Meirs. In all of this I
haven't said `who' I think is a better choice, because I wasn't trying to put
anyone's name forth. I haven't looked around to see who is there to nominate.
I don't think the president has, either.


Right now.....at this point in time.....I do not think Meirs is the best
choice that could have been made. Thats all I said....thats all I meant....
and nothing else is stated or implied.


---
*Durango b301 #PE* Erratum (errata) - error (errors)
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)