Bush Supreme Court Nominee Former Microsoft Lawyer 1036
DaveM writes "Bush's most recent Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, successfully argued that people who were sold defective software by Microsoft weren't "injured," and couldn't participate in a class action against the company. The case involved unstable compression features in MS DOS 6.0, which were corrected by a $9.95 update, MS DOS 6.2. Plaintiffs wanted Microsoft to offer the updates for free, but eventually lost to Miers' arguments."
Maybe she'll help out when they impeach Bush (Score:0, Insightful)
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/02/bush-directly
Re:Maybe she'll help out when they impeach Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice flaming headline. (Score:2, Insightful)
CRISIS! DANGER!
A former mail clerk in GWB's oil company once used Microsoft Windows to play minesweeper. Now that mail clerk is the Janitor at Google! Does this mean Google is evil?
Wrong process anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Capitalism (Score:1, Insightful)
What do you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
So she did her job... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are 'we' going to fault her for that ?
You know, here's a news flash... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft pays well.
I fail to see any relevance to this story, beyond the usual anti-Microsoft rabble rousing.
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly what is the story here? Both sides had lawyers. Are you going to tell me that all the lawyers on the other side are shining knights of glory?
Nice Way of Slashdot to Shoehorn This Story (Score:1, Insightful)
What are you guys trying to get at here? That attorney's views are the same as their clients?
This story sucks, and slashdot is obviously trying to start a flamewar here. Nice trolling, Taco.
Key phrase (Score:5, Insightful)
"Microsoft believed that only people who actually lost data had a right to sue; that those merely with faulty software hadn't been injured."
I hate Microsoft as much of the next guy, but I don't see what's wrong with this. It's basically saying "If you lost data, you can sue. If you didn't, you can't".
Sounds like the people that wanted to sue Microsoft, but didn't have anything go wrong for them, got caught.
Besides, there are plenty of other defects in Microsoft software they probably could have sued for instead.
Big Law Firm - MS has Bucks (Score:5, Insightful)
I would object to this nominee based on her:
* committing unethical acts while representing them;
* arguing a totally untenable or specious position or otherwise demonstrating gross incompetence;
* obviously agreeing with her client in her private speech (indicating a personal position, not a professional representation of her client's position), where that client's position was representative of unethical behavior or attitudes, etc.;
* use of legal arguments based far outside of conventional legal mainstream thought (the Bork-Wacko factor).
It seems to me we should pay attention to ethics, competence, and political leanings that don't represent the broadly accepted norm, or if she's in the past said she will legislate from the bench (which I highly doubt given her lack of being a judge previously).
Re:You know, here's a news flash... (Score:4, Insightful)
oh god (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Key phrase (Score:3, Insightful)
um, ok.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You need a single point to bring people into consideration. Otherwise what are they gonna do, have all 100 senators sit at a table and talk until they can find someone they all like? riiight, like that's gonna find someone quickly
-everphilski-
No Judicial Experience (Score:2, Insightful)
What's really a concern is that there are a bunch of people out there, and I forget who the talking heads were, for which I apologize, who are saying that Harriet Miers is not considered a legal scholar, but Just Another Corporate Lawyer. That's troubling to me, far more troubling than her work for Microsoft.
It's also troubling, of course, that this is Just Another Bush Crony getting a job, but the stakes are far, far higher than the stakes at FEMA under Brown and Chertoff. They can be fired or replaced. A Justice can't.
Re:Wrong process anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was hoping he would nominate Janice Rogers Brown, a black female conservative Christian libertarian and daughter of a sharecropper, if only for the fun in watching the media and politicians desperately try to pigeon hole her. Thousands and thousands of exploding heads guaranteed with that one. Oh well...
Not very telling (Score:5, Insightful)
What concerns me more is that she has no experience being a judge so there's nothing really to base a judgement of how impartial or fair minded she would be as judge. You can't really know how she'll interpret the law until she's judged cases.
This goes back, in my opinion, to Bush hiring completely unqualified people for important positions, like Mike Brown at FEMA, only the consequences of this choice will reach much further into the future.
Re:What do you expect? (Score:2, Insightful)
Republican Justices? (Score:4, Insightful)
Individual Justices do tend to be either authoritarian or libertarian, and either punishment-oriented or goal-oriented, though; some people incorrectly assign these values to the parties (just because GWB is a punishment-oriented authoritarian doesn't mean those are the values of the people who are registered republicans).
If it makes you feel better, Harriet Miers has been reported to be a Gore supporter by the mainstream media.
Re:Key phrase (Score:5, Insightful)
W. choosing someone in his pockets.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Short Version (Score:5, Insightful)
1. MS DOS 6.0 has bad compression software that doesn't work and can destroy your data.
2. Microsoft is sued because people bought something, didn't get what they thought they did and are forced to pay more to just get what they should have already had.
3. Supreme court nominee argues based on the technicality that the mere presense of the fault isn't enough to count as an "injury" but you need to actually have destroy data and since the suit wasn't brought forth on that basis, calls for dismissal.
4. Microsoft wins. Lawyers win. People loose.
So remember, if a contractor ever builds your house out of paper mache instead of bricks like he promised, sue only AFTER it collapses.
So What (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe she'll help out when they impeach Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush lied to the entire country and troops are dying, plus he's nominating his own personal lawyer with NO experience as a judge, to the Supreme Court. We seriously need an impeachment here.
(Hot dang, this place is thick with neo conservative mods!!)
Re:What do you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong process anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You know, here's a news flash... (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess my sig is very appropriate for this situation. Life is about choices, you show who you are by the choices you make.
What is a lawyer's job? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because someone can argue a point for someone (remember that was her JOB to give MS's argument, not her own preference) it does not automatically mean they believe it to be correct.
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:1, Insightful)
No. I have no concern at all with puting one of their former lawyers on the bench. No. None at all.
Re:What do you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yours is the first post I've come across to actually address the case in question and coincidentally the first to obviously not have read what the case was about. So I will respond:
It wasn't a question of what MS should have done about upgrades or refunds or whatever. It was a question of whether everyone who bought DOS 6 with the buggy compression could sue or whether only people who had lost data because of said buggy compression. Not everyone used the compression. Not everyone who used the compression lost data. So the legal argument, not the moral argument of what this company should do in the name of customer service, is whether or not everyone who bought the product can sue or only the people who actually were affected by loss of data due to the buggy compression scheme. I think it sounds reasonable from a legal point of view that only the people who used and lost data should be able to sue.
Re:Wrong process anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
(No, apart from the fact that everything is something we need to vilify...)
Moreover... who hasn't occasionally lamented that only Politicians seek office? Have you never wished that, say, a President could be "drafted" from a President pool, comprising (like a jury pool) people who are qualified and willing but not seeking? Well, at first glance, this latest Bench-warmer pick may approximate that.
Re:Um... (Score:2, Insightful)
I really don't think that the story was intended as a negative portrayal of Miers, but rather as an interesting note. Stuff that matters, maybe not; but without a doubt this is news for nerds.
Re:um, ok.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unbelievable (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but where the HELL were these people when it was time to vote?!?! In BOTH elections 2K and 2K4 I would have RATHER had ANYONE but HIM... In addition I would have voted for the independent party candidate but I knew my ONLY chance of keeping Bush out of office was Democrat and that failed too...
I certainly, am not happy about what has transpired since 2000... I hated the thought of "Monkeyboy" being in office in 2000 and with everything that has gone on since has furthered my assertion that I was right. He was a bad choice then and continues to be the wrong guy for the job...
He is bad at just about everything he does except one thing... He is somehow charismatic with the rednecks and impoverished people of the "red states"... I don't understand how, for example, in Iowa (and another 'I' state I don't remember) there are LINES Hundreds of people long waiting to get food because they are so poor and there are no jobs that they can't afford to put food on the table. Yet theses states went "red" in both elections...
I just can't figure it out... It's like a HUGE portion of this country has lost the intellectual/logical side of it's collective brain...
He continues to damage this country in numerous ways and yet lots of people like him, in fact, many love him still. I am not talking about the rich republicans that are obviously happy with him nor am I talking about the religious right that is happy with him either... I am talking about the "common" men and women that still like his decisions.
It confuses me to this day how this continues. It's like a bad dream. Every week I see something new in the news that he has decided or because of a person he chose for a position has screwed up SO badly that it is completely inexcusable yet "that's ok... He's just a little slow..."
No! He's the leader of THE MOST POWERFUL nation in the WORLD... If ANYONE of us (making less then $250K/year) were to screw up this frequently we be fired and be hard pressed to find another job... (Side Note: the $250K/year is a wag estimate, meaning those making about that much would find a financial way to weasel out of it)...
Oh well, this rant won't change anything but I at least won't "bottle it up".
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:1, Insightful)
it is interesting that it is now conservatives (myself included) that are disappointed with the Miers nomination while liberals (Feinstein, Reid, etc.) are happy. I seriously want to know this, howexactly is Bush conservative? Big spender, lax immigration, "diversity", federalized health care, education, and now emergency management. if he wasn't Christian, the liberals would not have a problem with the guy.
Re:If you were dumb enuff to use DOS ... (Score:2, Insightful)
. . . and the alternative to Bush, John Kerry, would have been better? The man who doesn't own SUVs but daily drives any one of seven owned by his wife? The same John Kerry who ((allegedly)) cheated his way into multiple purple hearts in his quest for an early discharge? The same John Kerry who was putting down those who did their duty and served our country? I live here in Taxachusetts and I can't stand John Kerry. In fact, I can't think of a single politician at higher state or Federal levels that I do not abhor. I vote against incumbants whenever there is a reasonable alternative, but in the last election I voted not for Bush, but against John Kerry. Granted, I checked the Bush box on the ballot, but that was because it was the only way to keep an even worse scumbag out of office. Both candidates suck, and I just fear that John Kerry would have done far, FAR more damage.
Oh, for the days of our parents when Republicans were really for smaller government, and Democrats really for the people. Now it's a matter of social engineering, controlling every facet of our personal lives, and profiteering without getting caught like Delay did.
Vote against incumbants, always, unless the alternative is far worse.
Re:What do you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Her client hired her, she is required (yes REQUIRED) to do her best in the handling of the case, and since she won, I'd say she did a great job.
You obviously don't understand how the law works at all.
Stop expecting Slashdot to be unbiased (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know where people manage to get the impression that a site run by a guy calling himself "Commander Taco" should be held to the same journalistic standards as CNN.
The Slashdot editors post stories that they'd want to read as Slashdot readers. Since the editors are heavily anti-Microsoft, pro-Apple, pro-Linux, pro-Unix, anti-Republican, etc, those are the sorts of stories that they post.
Complaining about "hidden" bias on Slashdot is like complaining about "hidden" bias in a press release or at the Democratic National Convention.
Constitutional process, checks and balances (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever taken a US history / constituion class?
It all goes back to check and balances for our three arms of the national government.
Why is it wrong to have the president appoint a SC justice with the advice and consent of the Legislative branch? Just because you hate W does not make the process "wrong". Billy boi Clinton appointed one of the most liberal SC justices ever and had her approved in a 96-4 vote in the Senate, with little to no bitching by the minority right (or was that majority right at the time?)
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, lawyers who zealously represent their cllients even when they personally disagree are like those scumbag doctors who'll treat just about anyone. I mean, wouldn't the world be a better place if Christian doctors refused to treat homosexuals, and liberal doctors refused to treat Republicans? Of course not. And just like medical care, the legal system only works if everyone has the best counsel available to them.
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:3, Insightful)
whatever your thoughts on the WoT, after 9/11, if he was all you say, would he really believe in promoting democracy and changing the medieval ways of the middle east or would he just say "kill em all, let God sort them out"?
which requires greater thought?
Re:What do you expect? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:um, ok.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering that these are lifetime appointments, do we really want this to be decided quickly? I'm all in favour of it taking a year or two to pick a new Supreme Court Justice, if it has to. We have an almost 2-year campaign cycle before the elections for the other two branches, why not take our time with the Supreme Court?
Rushing nominees through the confirmation process just leads to inadequuate Justices who we know nothing about.
Re:You know, here's a news flash... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if she had, for instance, breached client confidentiality, or had a history of losing important cases, or something like that, it might be relevant for determining how she would perform as a judge. However, I don't believe either of these is the case.
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:5, Insightful)
if he wasn't Christian, the liberals would not have a problem with the guy.
Respectfully, I [wikipedia.org] beg [wikipedia.org] to [wikipedia.org] differ. [wikipedia.org]
My disgust with Dubya has nothing to do with the fact that he is religious. It has to do with the fact that he is a dangerous neo-con with absolutely no regard for the opinions or suffering or others. And believe it or not but liberals can be religious too. We just don't believe in forcing it on people the way that members of the far-right do.
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You know, here's a news flash... (Score:3, Insightful)
My suggestion would be to not appoint her until she has shown a record of some kind that will be useful in determining whether she is appropriate. Of course, I'm not an elected representative of the US people, so I have no choice in the matter. Probably what Bush is hoping is that as there is little useful past history that can be pointed out by the opposition, few will oppose her appointment. We really don't know what her views are on any of the important issues, and she might seem a more benign appointment than some candidates we know have outspoken views.
Re:um, ok.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Umm... Work on gaining a majority? Author and vote for bills that get enough majority party support to pass? Make a cogent argument to voters in states with a Senator in the majority party that convinces them to vote for the minority party Senator in the next election?
What is magic about 2/3 - why not require unanimous agreement?
Re:Indictments at the Gates (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh for crying out loud... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not very telling (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes we can fault her for doing her job. It is this very attitude that lawyers should put their personal judgement aside for anyone with enough cash that many people find abborant.
I remember when I first started college, I got a book called "Engineers and Thier Profession" for my introduction to EE class. Towards the back there was a section about professional ethics that detailed many real-life "whistleblower" type incidents where engineers choose either to cover up or expose potentially dangerous defects in their companies products. The general conclusion of the book, and the attitude of most engineers I've talked with about professional ethics, is that as educated professionals, engineers had not only the right but the duty to put the greater good of humanity above the good of thier employer.
The lawyers do have an arguable defence for their position, namely that everyone deserves solid legal representation, and refusing to serve your client would be like a doctor refusing to treat someone that they personally decide doesn't deserve to live. But it is very hard for many of us in other profressions to accept that this means lawyers have not only the right, but the duty to completely suspend all personal judgement and act completely amorally.
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll know a tree by it's fruit.. that's one bad apple. I think the expression was What Would Jesus Do... not Who Would Jesus Bomb.
Bush may play the religious right like a cheap fiddle... but he's no Christian by his actions. (Yes I am a Christian and I do read the Bible and am sick of how popular this wolf in sheeps clothing is).
Re:Maybe she'll help out when they impeach Bush (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect you are trolling. Regardless, all of the presidents we have had at least in the 20th/21st century have been Christians.
There was this guy you might remember who was President a while back called Jimmy Carter who was extremely liberal and a Christian.
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:3, Insightful)
Put it this way, I work closely with my boss. DOes that mean I am qualified to do my bosses job? No. She may have been a lawyer for years, but that does not mean she knows what to do as a judge.
Let's also remember that we have been told MUCH (if not all) of the information regarding her position in the White house will not be disclosed. It is amazing that the last confirmation (Roberts) and this one they will go with the mindset of "I don't have to tell you anything"...that is crap. I am a citizen - I want to know. I want to know what her thoughts on civil liberties are, abortion, privacy. Things like abortion, search and seizure, etc. I think someone who goes to sit on this seat has to answer these questions and more... Not only do I want to hear what she has to say to ALL the questions asked, but I want to see evidence backing it up. It is not simply enough, for me and others, "Hey are you a good person?" and she responds with "Yea I'm a good person". I want to see evidence proving she is a "good person". My reason - because once you get the job of supreme court justice, you cannot be removed from that seat unless you: resign voluntarily, die, become mentally incompetant, or are deemed to have comitted treason.
As for who appointed her to this position. yea Bush...someone I do not trust in the least. Not to mention she was his private lawyer for years.
Re:If you were dumb enuff to use DOS ... (Score:1, Insightful)
the same John Kerry that can form complete sentences and speak coherently in public.
That was enough for me.
Kerry was more of a scumbag than Bush? Kerry was a flip flop median appeasing p-o-s politician, who actually served in Vietnam and ACTUALLY GOT WOUNDED in battle, Bush was a flip flop christian right appeasing p-o-s politician who had only held the 'governor...light' office in Texas and had failed at EVERY SINGLE business he attempted, but always got propped back up by his dad's friends, the Saudis, avoided Vietnam by having dad's connections jump him up on the list of the Texas air national guard and even illegally left his air guard unit to 'work on an Alabama campaign', joined a secret society and got the nick name 'temporary', sat around for 10 minutes looking confused when told of the attacks on 9/11 (and the DAY before his administration had issued reforms to cut counterterrorism funding, despite being fully briefed by the out-going Clinton administration about terrorism), got his lawyers to create a supposed loophole to suspend haebeus corpus and lock anyone up indefinitely without trial and USED IT, lied about nuclear weapons to start a war... that last bit alone is enough to never vote for him again.
There is probably enough 'bad' about Bush for the UN to put the son of a bitch in jail.
Cheers.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:2, Insightful)
From your post I bet your mantra is not just "Anybody but Bush" but also "Anything but stereotypical Conservative". Correct? Conservative is logically the opposite of Liberal. Hence my point. "Independents" don't like being called "liberal" because of all the wackos that have dragged the name down to unpopularity. But in the end "independents" vote the same way liberals do.
Re:Poor analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
So how does this not qualify as a "core feature" of that version?
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it means that her job as a lawyer is to see all sides of an issue, and zealously argue the position of her client. It requires some objectivity, something one will never find on Slashdot.
What most of you are missing (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple fact is that she would not be the first justice to never have sit on the bench before. Most recently Chief Justice Rehnquist was never a judge before he served http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist [wikipedia.org]. (Contrary to another poster, http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hill/marshall.htm [gmu.edu] Thurgood Marshall was a judge before he served.)
Of course, as some of you have pointed out, for a lawyer, what matters not are these cases where the laywer is paid for their work. Everyone (even rich companies) have the right to a solid defense. And in this case I actually agree with the decision- M$ should only be liable for data corruption that actually occured, not which might someday occur.
What does matter is what pro bono work she's done. This is where you find out what issues are important to her and gives better insight on how she would rule and write her opinions. Apparently she has been actively involved with trying to get other laywers to do pro bono work, so either she has a stack load of cases we can examine or she's a hypocrite.
mod parent down (Score:2, Insightful)
Brakes are a necessary component of a car -- you cannot operate a car without them.
Compression was not a necessary component of DOS 6.0
Bottom line: Compression's optional. Brakes aren't.
She Supports The Corporation/Government.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or could it be she was just defending her client? She was being PAID by microsoft, it doesnt mean she actually supported the decision. Attorneys are not paid to make moral judgements, they are paid to defend their client and try to win. ( and of course to make money for themselves.. )
Perhaps now her client is 'the people', and she will fight for us.
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Indictments at the Gates (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:2, Insightful)
And there lies the problem, doesn't it?
Just like medical care, only those who can afford it have the best counsel available to them. I don't really see how can the system work under these conditions...
---
Born stupid? Try again.
Given this new information. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:1, Insightful)
This is complete hogwash. You can no more prove this "fact" than the original poster can prove that Bush is only attacked because he is a Christian. How do you argue against the fact that Bush has spent [foxnews.com] more on the poor than even Bill Clinton (now before you bash the Fox News link, are the stats stated within false?). Now you can call Bush incompetent for his FEMA appointment and slow reaction. You can question his decision to go to war in Iraq (but remember that congress backed him on it). I personnally don't like the way he spends money like a teenager at the mall with their daddy's credit card. But you cannot make the claim that he doesn't care.
Have you spoken with him personnally? Do you know the reasoning behind his decisions? Have you seen his personnal reaction on receiving the news that another American soldier has died in Iraq? No, neither of us have. We cannot see what is going on in his heart. We have only his actions, and even those we don't see directly but rather through biased reporting -- whether it be CNN, FOX News, ABC or the BBC. The fact that he has called for so much spending for the poor and aid for hurricane victims would argue strongly that he does seem to regard the well-being of people -- or at least the "opinion" of the American public. I think that Bush cares very much about people, but like many caring people in this world, the way in which he tries to express it is flawed.
There are a lot of things that Bush has done that can be considered bad, but not caring is not one of them. Can you be absolutely sure that you actually care more?
Re:Key phrase (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What do you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
wouldn't the world be a better place if... (Score:1, Insightful)
There has to be a balance between 'making the system work' and people acting in ethical way -- and yes, however scary you find it, that means individual human beings deciding and acting on their personal morals.
Can People Please Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Lack of experience (Score:3, Insightful)
And I made this statement where? Thanks for coming out.
Oh, and just because it has been done in the past, does not make it the best possible course to take. Yea, she may potentially be a great justice, that does not mean she is the best - and taht does not mean she is qualified right now to enter this position. Could she learn it, yea if she got this position she has the rest of her life to learn how to do the job....but then, there are the first years where she does not have the EXPERIENCE.
PLUS, since she is not a judge, I have no idea how she would have ruled over different issues - something that is very important to the people.
So until you can argue on my assumption's, keep your squander to yourself. Just so you realize - my assumption's is her lack of EXPERIENCE & lack of proof as to how she will act with regards to certain issues.
This fight was over in 2004 (Score:2, Insightful)
Regardless of *why* you think the left blew it (poor candidates, poor campaign strategies, failing to remove Diebold from the equation, whatever), it doesn't change the fact that the GOP alone is calling the shots on what people can and can't do for the next 3, and their judges will be doing it for the rest of your natural lives.
If people don't like this nominee, and she is defeated, Bush will merely appoint someone else who is as similiar to her as he can. And sooner or later, *one* of his nominees will be confirmed, and set the rules we'll all have to live by.
The only way that's going to change, is if people are *so* dissatisfied with the people he chooses that the gradually elect enough people who are similarly dissatisfied, and those people change the rule that judicial appointments are for life.
And the odds of that happening in our lifetimes is pretty freakin' slim, considering that only about 30% of us actually bother to vote in the first place.
I know this seems harsh to the left, but keep in mind this is coming from someone who's probably farther to the left that you are. I'd vote for Clippy before voting for a Republican. I just think we need to pick our battles at this point. And trying to fight against the inevitable outcome that our most conservative president yet, will put the most conservative people he can get into lifetime judicial appointments, just seems like spending an awful lot of effort to close the barn doors after the horses are long gone.
As technology experts, I think we'd get more out of spending our efforts pointing better ways of doing electronic voting, advocating better science and technology polices, and soon... devising 100% full-proof methods of birth control. And of course, developing reliable open-source data-compression that makes the outcomes of lawsuits relating to it failing, moot.
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are a Republican: Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens and Kennedy.
If you are a Democrat: Roberts (formerly Rhenquist), Thomas, Scalia, sometimes O'Connor and Kennedy. Both sides hate Kennedy. Since Miers is a Bush appointee she is by definition an activist to Democrats and will not get the benefit of O'Connor's "sometimes."
If you are conservative, your non-activist Hero is Scalia, who believes that constitutions and statutes should be interpreted according to the words written in light of their meaning at the time they were written.
If you are a liberal, your non-activist Hero is Ginsburg because that tight bun is just so dang SEXY!!!
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:3, Insightful)
i agree. religion is a tool. all presidents are "religious" because that's the only way they'll be elected. JFK had enough trouble because he picked the wrong religion.
The difference between republicans and dems on the issue of religion is that republicans are willing to use religion to justify taking away people's rights (the abortion issue), are willing to destroy science curriculums in public schools (evolution and "intelligent design" issues), and they don't seem to understand the concept of seperation of church & state.
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:3, Insightful)
does it really matter if it's unilateral? france (especially france), russia, and germany were all on the take (oil for food). the UN is a corrupt institution. should we really allow others to dictate our foreign policy.
as for the planning, yes, there were problems. however, track the military changes and cuts in teh 90's, and you'll find we were in a major downsizing when 9/11 hit. for comparison, in 1941, the military had been in a three year rapid and major expansion so after peral harbor, we just accelerated what was already happening. every military operation (normandy, tarawa, okinawa, ardennes, kasserine, and so manu others) is going to have problems. the real concern us how we respond. we've done a fair job. sure it cold be better.
as for the thinnest of pretexts, there were 23 points on the congressional authorization. 77 senators voted yes. the US policy was regime change in Iraq (1998, signed by Clinton). there was not one credible source that said WMD's weren't there. the thinness is only from those who refuse to look at the facts and history.
other commenters have complained that there are other countries that are not democratic. yes, but how many of htem had long-standing terrorist ties, a history of violence towards the US (and more importatnly, its neighbors), wmd programs, a history of using them, and was actively pursuing new ones. plus, we were at war with him, as inthe no-fly zones, the US forced inspections (100,000 troops), etc.
we're in a long war, Iraq is a part. the hatred of the president clouds otherwise good judgements.
Bad news for Microsoft? she may recuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if 9-11 was 100% down to Saddam, are you saying it's valid to exchange 26,000 Arab lives to "prevent" a fluke incident that killed 3,000? Cares about others? What the hell are you smoking? And the 26,000 is 100% civilian. No one is even counting the deaths of those who take up arms. Say double that number perhaps, unless you want to admit that the civilian losses to war losses are less than 2:1, right?
He's either evil or stupid. Take your pick. I personally don't think he's dumb, just not very proficient at public speaking.
he does seem to regard the well-being of people -- or at least the "opinion" of the American public.
Well, duh. Post Katrina, if he hadn't shown intense interest he'd be out of a job right now. He cares about your opinion only because he has to. "Approval ratings lowest ever" was the news story that made him "care".
Oh, and don't even attept the "bi-partisan" bullshit, I'm not even from the USA so that system of avoiding debate won't work here. He is the worst president in years and he has done immeasuable harm to America. People will be flying planes into buildings for the next 50 years thanks to the hatred he stirred up. And I don't believe that was an accident, Rummy etc have been quoted as saying they'd like to incite violence in order to root them out. Caring? Are we talking about the same people? They care about no one but their investors.
You sir, are scum. You are defending a murderer. An armed robber of the highest order.
Re:Um... (Score:3, Insightful)
Miers is bad, not because of this stupid tech angle and not because she's never been a judge, but a) because she has no demonstrable scholarly credentials whatsoever, and b) her nomination sends a message to bright young conservative lawyers: don't write anything contraversial, don't join the Federalist society, don't vocally challenge the logic of popular cases, and don't express doubts about the permissiveness of the Commerce Clause, because if you do, you will never be nominated for high-scrutiny positions.
I have some issues, but not that she worked for MS (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet an attempt was made to turn this into another of those infamous "class action suits," which means, really, that anyone can jump on the bandwagon and claim injury. You know: Notices in major newspapers and magazines, lots of fine print, years of parading in the press. And when all is said and done, if these things win, you might be eligible for a rebate worth a few bucks, maybe, if you send it in, which only a handful of people ever will. You know why Norton can pretend to offer you Systemworks for free at Fry's if you send in the multiple rebate forms. It's because you never will, and they know it. It may get you to buy it, but it's just too much of a hassle to bother when you get right down to it. Mission accomplished, chump!
Meanwhile, in this case, assuming it had been able to go forward, by the time it would have ended, DOX 6.X would have been history anyway. You would have upgraded to a faster box, guaranteed, with a new OS, just like you have since the dawn of IT history. So here's big, bad Microsoft that everyone loves to hate and hassle, with yet another frivolous lawsuit to deal with.
And who gets all the money? MILLIONS of dollars change hands in these things. You get nothing (but then, you weren't really injured), but the bucks go to the LAWYERS who made up all this stuff in the first place.
So good for her. She made a good argument and they made the right decision to toss such nonsense out of court.
(And, having said that, I think she is an extremely poor choice for the Supreme Court with no relevant experience at all.)
Re:Maybe she'll help out when they impeach Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:She Supports The Corporation/Government.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If you were dumb enuff to use DOS ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Maybe she'll help out when they impeach Bush (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Indictments at the Gates (Score:2, Insightful)
It would be shockingly rare to find, and it certainly doesn't come from the kool-aide drinking left. Posts like this just leave me frustrated in that we need some real opposition to put an end to the cronyism of the current right. Apparently our choices are supposed to be left-wing tin-foil hat "Evil Haliburton under my bed" moonbats, or right-wing country club cronyism fat-cat good ol boy network crap. Delay's a total loser. But let's not leave out Harry "Leave the Check on the Counter" Reid (you don't get anything done in Nevada without paying off a Reid family member), Nancy "Just Nailed Again on More Charges Just Like Delay" Pelosi, etc. And let's not forget the mental misfits like Harkin, Biden and Dean, and everyone's favorite hypocrite Ted Kennedy. Add to that Orrin "Did I mention my son's an attorney you can hire" Hatch? Both parties are overwhelmed with these parasites.
Someone show me a party that values individual liberty (right to abortion and to gun ownership), personal property (right to my money and my property - no left-wing supreme court taking my property to give it to another crony of theirs), national security (dealing with terrorism, not pretending we can hug our enemies and they'll love us, while also shutting the borders down rather than look the other way so our business cronies can hire illegals at a fraction the fair labor rate), and I'm there.
Let me opt out of social security ponzi schemes and take full responsibility for my own retirement (money left under a mattress does better than social security), leave me out of prescription drug gifts for societies most affluent, highest disposable income segment (giving money gifts to seniors at the expense of young families is insane), and I'll take care of myself. Make me pay for my own flood/hurricane insurance, or accept the risk of losing my property if I don't - I will ask my government to steal money from my fellow slashdotters paychecks to bail me out for my irresponsibility.
I seriously doubt my Republican party will ever leave the country club. They're not interested in being the party of the little guy. But will someone please get some sanity back in the left and send the paranoid loons to get some desparately needed clinical help? You have no idea how many people might listen to your party if it wasn't so obsessed with seeing imaginary animals and secret conspiracies around every corner.