![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
американская политика
Насколько хорошим был первый бушевский выбор кандидата в Верховный суд (Робертс), настолько плохим и диким оказался второй (Майерс). Даже крайне правые и консерваторы взбунтовались.
Любопытно будет, если найдётся достаточно республиканцев в сенате, готовых её прокатить.
Любопытно будет, если найдётся достаточно республиканцев в сенате, готовых её прокатить.
no subject
no subject
no subject
My only problem with her is an utter uncertainty of where her ideology lies (I'd hate her to be an extremist on either side).
As for the stench of cronysm, it is definitely there. I just hope this does not mean an utter incompetence, as many of Bush's cronys have exhibited in the past (and Bush being the most incompetent of them, but this is a different topic).
no subject
Не знаю как насчёт некомпетентности (вряд ли она некомпетентна), но на вершины интеллекта или достижения в области юридической мысли тут расчитывать не приходится.
no subject
"Harriet Miers is a capable lawyer, a hard worker, and a kind and generous person [...], a careful and fair-minded listener."
A capable lawyer who is careful and fair-minded does sound like positive characteristics.
Mr. Frum further goes along to say that "she is not the person to lead the court in new directions". That should sound good to the conservatives, who have coined the supposedly deragotory term "an activist judge", which Harriet Miers seems not to be, according to this description.
But she is definitely a crony.
In any case, this says little about her actual ideology (even fair-minded people usually have one) besides that she is probably a conservative, given her with for Bush administration.
no subject
Для Верховного суда недостаточно.
But she is definitely a crony.
Угу.
In any case, this says little about her actual ideology (even fair-minded people usually have one) besides that she is probably a conservative, given her with for Bush administration.
Проблема не только в том, что у неё неясно какая идеология; но ещё и в том, что непонятно, есть ли у неё вообще юридическая идеология, т.е. сформулированная точка зрения по различным конституционным вопросам, например. Опыт её работы не включал, как правило, обязанностей, которые требовали бы подобных размышлений.
no subject
You are also talking about the lack of judicial experience. It seems necessary for me, too, but it looks like people who know better disagree -- Roberts had the whole of 2 years of it. Many former SCOTUS judges had none before joining the Court.
You accuse her of lacking a formed judicial philosophy. Unfortunately, these days a judicial philosophy is also a political issue (Constitution as a Living Documents, Dead Document, State Rights, Federal Powers, ...). Why do you require someone with a formed set of prejudices? It a truly open mind on a range of problems a liabiilty?
no subject
no subject
Робертс очень хороший, по-моему.
no subject
А чем Робертс так хорош? Если не секрет, с Вашей позиции.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Goss, director CIA, pri hearings kljalsja v neideologichnosti. Cherez MESJAC posle naznachenija, on vypustil memo o tom, chto CIA polnostju dolzhna podderzhivat' liniju administracii, i dazhe chastnye vozrazhenie ne privetstvujutsja.
no subject
no subject
no subject
My take on this
Re: My take on this
Look, Republican senators are very uneasy about changing the Rules of the Senate. They've used the fillibuster option quite a lot during the years past and foresee needing to use it again when the tide changes and they find themselves in a minority. Those people look at a long term, not the next 4 years. So they need to be getting something VERY substantial right now to consider making their life much more dangerous in the future.
Re: My take on this
Ja ne uveren v "uneasyness" respublikancev. Ih razrushitel'nye sposobnosti sderzhivaet tol'ko to, chto idioty demokraty ne mogut posmotret' na vse global'no i sprovocirovat' teh na unichtozhenie filibustera, ibo istoricheski on ispol'zovalsja respublikancami (naprimer, protiv anti-lynching laws).
no subject
This judge is by far not the worst option. I've read a bunch of her decisions. She is pro-life all right, and she is republican, but it seems that she can separate her views. At least she knows what to do - and Roberts was a judge for what, two years? Why do you like him, BTW? Seriously, I wonder, because no one else does...
no subject
no subject
She was an attorney in Jones v. Bush BTW, and she seems pretty moderate, though I do not know what type of personality she is. She at least wrote some law review articles, unlike Roberts. And if you look at her decisions as President of Texas State Bar and some of her appellate writing she seems reasonable. Yet again, we are dealing with a lawyer here, so I see your point - she is not a judge.
Well, neither is Roberts. He was around for 2 years. He is an advocate.
no subject
What I'm afraid of is that she may become a moderate Thomas (not ideologically, of course). I'm afraid that she, just like Thomas, would simply miss issues. Her ideology does not have much to do with it, except that, perhaps, in Thomas' view, there _are_ no issues.
99.9% of practicing lawyers never get exposed to as large a breadth of issues as a Supreme Court Justice gets.
no subject
А что касается зашоренности нашей кандидатки, то, к сожалению, любой "несудья" будет этим грешить. Даже РОбертс...
no subject
no subject
На самом деле, я не вижу особенных достоинств у Робертса и чудовищных недостатков у этой новой бабы - есть прецеденты очень успешных назначений совершенно неопытных людей. Новую бабу если не и утвердят, то скорее из вредности, и будут правы
no subject
Из нынешних судей (если взять идеологически сходных) Скалия вполне справляется, Томас даже не знает, что он не справляется.
no subject
Консерваторы, соответственно, кричат, что президент продался левакам. Левые, в свою очередь, настаивают, что президент все таки продался нео-конам, но иногда по ошибке принимает правильные решения.
Сюрреализм на марше