Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government News Politics

Bush Supreme Court Nominee Former Microsoft Lawyer 1036

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the well-thats-one-way-to-get-at-this-story dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bush Supreme Court Nominee Former Microsoft Lawyer

Comments Filter:
  • by schnikies79 (788746) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:00AM (#13711970)
    Of course, because you heard it on the news, it must be factual. I don't like the guy much either but I don't believe every bit of drivel to come down the pipe.
  • by hanshotfirst (851936) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:01AM (#13711980)
    No bias here, oh no.

    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?

  • by pubjames (468013) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:02AM (#13711987)
    Having the president appoint supreme court judges is wrong anyway. There should be a better process of selecting them. How's it done in other countries?

  • Re:Capitalism (Score:1, Insightful)

    by ikejam (821818) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:02AM (#13711991)
    that'd be plutocracy
  • by Viper Daimao (911947) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:02AM (#13711995) Journal
    What was she supposed to argue? "My client is guilty."?
  • Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by theantipop (803016) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:03AM (#13711997)
    I can't say it's a great thing for America to have so many Republican justices, but I don't see how anyone can get wrapped up on this point? So she was good at her job. Is that something that we need to villify?
  • by Animaether (411575) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:03AM (#13712001) Journal
    ...and she did it well. Well enough to win a case that at least on grounds of common sense (which typically doesn't apply to legal rulings) she should've lost.

    Are 'we' going to fault her for that ?
  • by hivemind_mvgc (823238) <hivemind@mvgc.net> on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:03AM (#13712002) Homepage
    Most lawyers argue a case because they're paid to argue the case, not because they have some personal convictions involved in the case.

    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)

    by Reality Master 101 (179095) <RealityMaster101.gmail@com> on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:04AM (#13712005) Homepage Journal
    Lawyers argue for what their clients pay them to argue.

    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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:04AM (#13712016)
    This is such a non-story it's ridiculous. Miers was a lawyer for a private law firm. As such, they take cases and they represent their clients and advocate for them as best as they can.

    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)

    by deanj (519759) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:04AM (#13712019)
    Rather that turning this into a political farce, for someone that has an axe to grind with this new nominee, let's cut to the chase here, and look at the key phrase in that article:

    "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.
  • by justanyone (308934) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:04AM (#13712022) Homepage Journal
    I'm not ready to disqualify a supreme court nominee based on their having had as a client one of the richest corporations on the planet. She was head of the largest law firm in (Texas? Dallas?) and thus had available lawyers to devote to a case; Microsoft had money to pay them; that's normal.

    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).

  • by B'Trey (111263) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:07AM (#13712052)
    She's being nominated to the Supreme Court, where she will influence the direction of court cases in the US for likely the next few decades. She has never been a judge, so we have no history of judgements on which to evaluate her. If we don't use her previous work as a lawyer as a basis of judgement, exactly how should we judge her? Or should we simply confirm her as a Supremen Court Justice and hope for the best?
  • oh god (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworld@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:07AM (#13712055) Homepage
    What stupidity. There are a bunch of reasons to criticize her: no judicial experience or constitutional scholarship; hell, she's just a Bush flunky. The fact that she was hired as an advocate for Microsoft isn't one of them. I mean, get some goddamn perspective.
  • Re:Key phrase (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Speare (84249) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:08AM (#13712075) Homepage Journal
    I hate Chevrolet as much of the next guy, but I don't see what's wrong with this. It's basically saying "If you lost a child in a horrific crash due to a known brake failure problem in that line of cars, you can sue. If you didn't, you can't."
  • um, ok.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by everphilski (877346) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:09AM (#13712083) Journal
    He appoints nominees, the senate makes the final decision. If the senate doesn't like what they see, the democrats (the opposing party at the moment) can filabuster, or the senators will vote against her.

    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 :P.

    -everphilski-
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:09AM (#13712084)
    I'd be a little bit more concerned about the fact that she has no judicial experience. It's apaprently not *that* unusual; Rehnquist had none when he was nominated to the Court. Thomas had almost none. The gripe that I have with Roberts--only two years' experience as a judge before becoming the Chief Justice is an outrage--doesn't really apply here. Or rather, it wouldn't if there weren't already two sitting judges with very little judicial experience.

    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.
  • by Fezzick (913356) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:10AM (#13712103)
    Appointment of a supreme court judge by the president is absolutely essential; our forefathers specifically designed our federal goverment that way . This directly corresponds to the checks and balances between the three branches of goverment that every US student learned in social studies class (in this case, the executive over the judiciary).
  • Um... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:11AM (#13712108)
    I'm no fan of Bush and could give a flip about Meirs, but isn't this reaching a bit? If this is the worst anyone can come up with... or were you just looking for a tech angle?

    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)

    by Pedrito (94783) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:11AM (#13712113) Homepage
    Lawyers are hired to win cases. Lawyers frequently champion causes they don't personally support. It's their job to win their clients' cases. The job of a lawyer is not to be impartial or fair minded. You can't fault her for doing her job.

    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.
  • by Viper Daimao (911947) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:11AM (#13712120) Journal
    Yeah, what does what microsoft should have done have to do with the Supreme Court nominee? They hired her firm, she argued their case. Or am I missing the point of the /. article? Are we bashing Microsoft or Bush's Nominee?
  • by Medievalist (16032) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:15AM (#13712159)
    Once appointed, Supreme Court Justices are pretty much free to rise above the (nearly invisible) Republican/Democrat split if they so choose.

    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)

    by SimilarityEngine (892055) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:15AM (#13712164)
    But it goes further, to say: if you have defective brakes, you are not entitled to a free replacement - even if those brakes are shown to have caused serious accidents.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:16AM (#13712179)
    I am personally bothered by this choice W. has offered. She is his personal laywer and has been for many many many years... she has never been a judge, a constitutional law scholar, or anything-- just a representative for political people and corporations. She should not be allowed to join the supreme court.
  • Short Version (Score:5, Insightful)

    by neoshroom (324937) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:18AM (#13712192)
    Short Version:

    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)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:19AM (#13712206) Homepage Journal
    Has she ever suggested that it might be OK to wire up a guy's testicles to a car battery to get answers out of him, so long as he's not a USA citizen? Working for Microsoft isn't where this administration has set the bar. Shocking people's testicles is where this administration has set the bar. I just want a justice that won't have everyone's testicles wired up and ready to go 20 years from now! Who cares about the fetusses? Who cares about prior Microsoft experience? The testicles are where it's at!
  • by Travoltus (110240) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:19AM (#13712209) Journal
    Clinton was impeached for a blowjob.

    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!!)
  • by tomhudson (43916) <.moc.nosduh-arab ... .nosduh.arabrab.> on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:23AM (#13712241) Journal
    It was dishonest "logic".
    You'll see that many of her arguments are highly based on logic. In the mentioned Microsoft case, her argument was against the "class" that was chosen for the lawsuit. The plaintiffs chose everyone who bought DOS 6.0 as for the class, arguing that they had been harmed and shouldn't have to pay $10 for an upgrade. However, not everybody who bought the product was using, or intended to use the compression features, so it was difficult to justify including all of them in the class. Therefore, the class was decertified.
    That would be like arguing that not everyone who has potentially defective silicone-gel breast implants should have them removed - you've got to wait until they burst and you get all sorts of auto-immune diseases, and THEN you can sue for the cost of getting them removed, and your damages. Otherwise, you're not a victim - just a "potential" victim. So no class action for you, baby! Speaking of babies ...
    Rock a bye baby on the tree top
    When the wind blows the cradle will rock
    When the bough breaks the cradle will fall
    WTF sort of parent leaves their kid in a treetop? No wonder kids are fucked up today! This is what you read them before they go to bed? They'll think you'll abandon them! They ... *smack*

    Burma Shave

  • by Fezzick (913356) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:24AM (#13712253)
    sigh.... The president appoints a justice(executive branch).... the senate approves a justice(legislative branch).... Thats two branches checking the third (judiciary branch). Once the justice gets on the bench, he/she is on there for life (or at least until retirement). Thats just how the system works.
    The judicial branch is there to uphold the constitution which is the highest letter of the law in the U.S. I think you must be referring to how the current administration uses the Constitution as toilet paper so it'd be easy to get that hierarchy misunderstood.
    Of course, the judicial branch is there to uphold the constitution. I never said otherwise. I'm not quite sure what the rest of the babble about the current administration and toilet paper is about though...
  • by at_slashdot (674436) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:26AM (#13712275)
    As someone pointed out she didn't work as a judge so we cannot evaluate her by a history of judgements. However, we can evaluate her by the choices she made: Did she defend poor people, did she defend somebody who was attacked by a corporate bully? I mean there are cases and cases, I think it matters for example if you choose to defend Microsoft or you choose to represent the people that use Microsoft products.(Of course that's only a personal opinion and preference and it doesn't have any legal weight)

    I guess my sig is very appropriate for this situation. Life is about choices, you show who you are by the choices you make.

  • by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:29AM (#13712323)
    A lawyer's employ is to defend the position of the client. In this case, she was a lawyer for Microsoft. If she had been a lawyer for anyone else, she would have defended their position with equal fervor. Now that she is likely to become a justice of the Supreme Court, her employ is to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and if she can successfully defend something as silly as MS-DOS 6.0, then she has my support in defending some of the silly things that come before the bench of the highest court in the nation.

  • by hesiod (111176) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:30AM (#13712331)
    > Uh, how is that a flame? It's a fact. Bush's latest nominee used to be a lawyer for Microsoft.

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:32AM (#13712354)
    Hmmm, let's see. The headline itself is simply a statement of fact. An accurate statement of fact. This isn't flaming. As for bias, I figure it is natural to be somewhat concerned when the president proposes a new Supreme Court Justice who has no experience on the bench. That's separate from her being a former Microsoft lawyer. You remember Microsoft, right? The company who's got a documented history of flaunting legal judgements against it? The company who the current administration has been treating with kid gloves? And this proposed new Justice was involved in getting them out from under a class action suit for selling shoddy merchandise.

    No. I have no concern at all with puting one of their former lawyers on the bench. No. None at all.

  • by magarity (164372) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:32AM (#13712356)
    Microsoft SHOULD have offered updates for free if they screwed something up
     
    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.
  • by ari_j (90255) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:32AM (#13712370)
    How is it "wrong"? What standard are you using to evaluate the procedure? It is absolutely correct, according to the U.S. Constitution. Who cares how other countries do it? Other countries simply do not have the same court system we have, and whatever they do doesn't make sense - but even if similarities exist to the point that their way would make sense here, it still doesn't matter because the Constitution says it doesn't matter.
  • Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by moviepig.com (745183) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:34AM (#13712385) Homepage
    ...So she was good at her job. Is that something that we need to vilify?

    (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)

    by ari_j (90255) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:35AM (#13712405)
    Yes, she would have blown up some heads. But as to this being "the worst anyone can come up with," I think that the implicit Bush-hating around here is turning a story that was intended as a "Hey, this is neat - our next Supreme Court Justice may know a thing or two about technology!" thing into a big fat "Bush is bad, Microsoft is bad, Miers worked for both and must be bad." thing.

    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)

    by Verteiron (224042) * on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:35AM (#13712407) Homepage
    Don't worry, it will be. As soon as the majority decides that it doesn't want to wait out or deal with a filibuster, it will use what the press is terming "the nuclear option" and essentially ban filibustering (is that even a word?) when it comes to judicial nominations. Apparently they've already come close to doing this at least once.
  • Re:Unbelievable (Score:2, Insightful)

    by GReaToaK_2000 (217386) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:40AM (#13712463)
    After re-reading this post of mine... I decided to put a pre-emptive disclaimer.. If you like Bush... Don't read further. In addition EraserMouseMan, this is not directed at you, it is simply a rant that your post sparked,and I agree with you... "So this article is just more fuel for the flames and really does nothing else." I agree with the other things you posted but this rant is an example of the above quote. ...

    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".
  • by b17bmbr (608864) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:43AM (#13712500)
    great point. I think that confirms what most of feel about lawyers, that they're really just hired guns. back in 2000, did anyone not think that the lawyers in Bush v. Gore could have just as easily switched sides and argued the same? remember the Roberts ruckus that he worked pro bon for a gay rights case? It's like people expect lawyers to have scruples or something.

    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.
  • by kimvette (919543) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:49AM (#13712581) Homepage Journal

    . . . 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.

  • by ifwm (687373) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:50AM (#13712595) Journal
    None of which has anything to do with how this lady should have argued her case.

    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.
  • by allanc (25681) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:51AM (#13712598) Homepage
    And your mistake is assuming that it's pretending to be. It's a common mistake for some reason. Slashdot doesn't claim to be journalism, they don't claim to be original, and they don't claim to be unbiased.

    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.
  • by gatzke (2977) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:53AM (#13712636) Homepage Journal

    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?)
  • by monkeydo (173558) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:03AM (#13712741) Homepage
    It's like people expect lawyers to have scruples or something.

    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.
  • by b17bmbr (608864) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:04AM (#13712749)
    you have described everyone in washington. what's your point? actually, isn't it odd that now differences of opinion mean someone's smallminded, stupid, and stubborn. in fact, let's examine this:

    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?
  • by Vinnie_333 (575483) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:05AM (#13712766)
    This is exactly right. Our legal system, like it or not, is not based so much on logic or rights or justice, as much as it is on semantics. The prosecution didn't argue that the product itself was defective (which is was), but rather that some people were damaged. Really, the win for MS didn't have as much to do with Meirs' defense and it did with the crappy prosectution.
  • Re:um, ok.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Forager (144256) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:06AM (#13712778) Homepage
    like that's gonna find someone quickly :P.

    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.
  • by julesh (229690) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:06AM (#13712779)
    Yes, but the point to consider is that lawyers (particularly corporate ones) really don't have much choice about the cases they take. They take the one that's presented and do the best job they can to argue it in favour of their client, or they get fired. That's basically the job description.

    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.
  • by Shakrai (717556) * on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:06AM (#13712780) Journal

    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.

  • by monkeydo (173558) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:07AM (#13712793) Homepage
    Why is judge experience neccesarry? It wasn't vogue to appoint judges to the Supreme Court until recently. Prior to that, we had governors, congressman, lawyers, etc. In fact, many of the most respected justices came to the court with no judicial experience.
  • by julesh (229690) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:09AM (#13712820)
    If we don't use her previous work as a lawyer as a basis of judgement, exactly how should we judge her? Or should we simply confirm her as a Supremen Court Justice and hope for the best?

    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)

    by uncqual (836337) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:11AM (#13712837)
    Seriously, if you're in the Senate, and your party is in the minority, how would you go about fighting for what you believe?

    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?

  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:16AM (#13712903) Homepage Journal
    Thanks for the backup. Constructive replies, especially ones that link to other supporting pages, certainly help. The rightwing zombies have managed a balance between the alienation that inhibits their voicing doubts about their controlling masters, and the fake certainty that any opponents are lonely fringe players. Just seeing other people accepting the truth can turn a lot of these easily led dittoheads towards the truth that can set them free.
  • by prisoner-of-enigma (535770) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:21AM (#13712957) Homepage
    Look, I know /. readership is overwhelming left-of-center, but to post an article about Bush's lawyer being "related to Microsoft" is kind of silly. At some point the Bush-bashing just becomes pointless partisanship. So she made an argument for Microsoft back in the DOS 6.2 days. She also used to be Democrat and contributed to Al Gore's campaign fund. Big deal. Is this what passes for "News for Nerds"?
  • by MorePower (581188) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:26AM (#13713011)
    Lawyers are hired to win cases. Lawyers frequently champion causes they don't personally support. It's their job to win their clients' cases. The job of a lawyer is not to be impartial or fair minded. You can't fault her for doing her job.

    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.

  • by mrbcs (737902) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:26AM (#13713018)
    More like he fools the religious right... the ones too lazy to pick up their Bible and read.

    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).

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:28AM (#13713035)
    Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress and the Supreme Court.
  • by soft_guy (534437) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:30AM (#13713055)
    if he wasn't Christian, the liberals would not have a problem with the guy

    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.
  • by roccomaglio (520780) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:31AM (#13713060)
    Actually the headline is a little inflamatory. The way the headline is worded "Bush Supreme Court Nominee Former Microsoft Lawyer" would lead one to believe that she was a full time Microsoft employee. I am sure that Microsoft has in house counsel and this would be the proper way to refer to in house counsel. The most accurate way to refer to her work for Microsoft would be "Bush Supreme Court Nominee represented Microsoft". The headline pushes the boundries of what you could say without being false. On the other hand I probably would not have clicked on that headline.
  • by AviLazar (741826) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:31AM (#13713065) Journal
    We are not talking about just any court position. Obviously people start as a judge with zero experience - but for the HIGHEST seat in the land, yea some judge-court experience is necessary. It is completely different sitting on the bench then trying to curry favor with the bench.

    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.
  • by cHiphead (17854) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:32AM (#13713077)
    How about...

    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)

    by EraserMouseMan (847479) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:34AM (#13713092)
    So you don't call yourself a "liberal". Would you at least comment on how often you choose to vote for a Democrat against a Republican?

    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)

    by tomhudson (43916) <.moc.nosduh-arab ... .nosduh.arabrab.> on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:36AM (#13713115) Journal
    If Microsoft was being sued over a bug that affected a core feature of the OS, that too would equally applied to everyone who purchased the system.
    It (disk compression) was heavily advertised, and was the #1 reason to upgrade. Remember the tiny hard disks (40-100 meg) back then?
    But since the bug was limited to a feature that only a small group of people used
    ... because reports quickly surfaced that it corrupted data. Everyone I know used it, and everyone experienced corruption, and downgraded back to DOS 5 (it also didn't help that DOS 6 was, on average, between 11 and 17% SLOWER than DOS 5).
    but Microsoft shouldn't have to pay damages to people who never intended to use the feature to begin with.
    Guess you should dig out the box it came in. It was intended for everyone, and it was a major push. Double-page ads in the newspapers pushing DOUBLE YOUR HARD DISK SPACE.

    So how does this not qualify as a "core feature" of that version?

  • by delong (125205) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:39AM (#13713150)
    Your (accurate) argument implies, if it applies, that our new Supreme Court nominee is a professional liar

    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.
  • by adturner (6453) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:44AM (#13713189) Homepage
    I'm amazed at the ignorance on slashdot. I've lost count of how many people have said, "How can she qualified for SOCTUS if she's never been a judge?"

    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)

    by Skadet (528657) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:47AM (#13713227) Homepage
    how's that 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 ... or any version that I can remember.

    Bottom line: Compression's optional. Brakes aren't.
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:59AM (#13713355) Homepage Journal
    Instead of the citizen. Could have guessed that one considering she was appointed by a politician..

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:59AM (#13713362)
    Argh. Bush is not religious. He just labels himself as such because it works for him politically. I am "religious" and I can't stand the man. He is fake and simply a puppet for the GOP. I am also a Southerner and his "Good Ole' Boy" (simple and honest, my ass) routine is just as fake, simply something that works for him politically.
  • by ad0gg (594412) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @12:30PM (#13713637)
    Why do people forget that BSA isn't just Microsoft. Apple, IBM,Dell and every other major software producer is a board member. Preston, Gates was lobbyiest for the BSA, i love how they connect it to Microsoft though.
  • by 3.14159265 (644043) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @12:32PM (#13713662)
    "And just like medical care, the legal system only works if everyone has the best counsel available to them."

    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.

  • by jafac (1449) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @12:33PM (#13713667) Homepage
    I hereby declare her to be an evil baby-eating witch, who must NOT gain any Democratic votes for confirmation.
  • by Khomar (529552) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @12:33PM (#13713670) Journal
    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. (emphasis added)

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @12:34PM (#13713680)
    Except in this case a failure doesn't result in human injury or death. Try to keep it in perspective.
  • by tomhudson (43916) <.moc.nosduh-arab ... .nosduh.arabrab.> on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @12:36PM (#13713696) Journal
    At the time they wre first implanted, we didn't know as much about the problems caused by silicone leaking into the body as we do now. They were supposed to be as safe as saline. They're not. It's a real problem, and not just for women. Think of it - guy marries a woman, and finds out she needs a double mastectomy and is facing a lifetime of joint pain because her plastic boobies ruptured. Everyone is a loser.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @12:48PM (#13713793)
    wouldn't the world be a better place if... everyone could just abdicate any moral responsibility to their boss/government/organization and defend even the worst crimes by saying 'I was just following orders.'

    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.
  • by DarkOx (621550) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @01:03PM (#13713918) Journal
    Lawyers have a job, so do judges. A lawyers task is to argue any point, philosophy and set of facts and precedents that he/she thinks will favorably impact the outcome of the case for the client. They are essentially sales men. No sales person ever came to you and said "Hey I think this product is a pice of total crap personaly but anyway you should by one." No they keep the discussion focused on the virtue of the product. Working for Microsoft ment she had to convince those she was asked to speak with, be they judges, officials, customers or whoever, that Microsofts positions were sensible and legally correct, not that she personally felt that way. The fact she worked for Microsoft means only she was paid to do a job.
  • by AviLazar (741826) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @01:10PM (#13713989) Journal
    ... So, of course, she must be immediately disqualified.

    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.
  • by RexDevious (321791) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @01:11PM (#13714000) Homepage Journal
    For those of us who aren't happy with the idea of a judge who will make the GOP's philosophy the law of our land, for the rest of our lives, tough cookies. You had you're chance to change who'd be appointing our judges (or lawyers who will become judges) in 2004, and you blew it.

    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. ;-).
  • by Zordak (123132) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @01:24PM (#13714121) Homepage Journal
    right now is that there are about 4 or 5 Justices who like to obey their consciences regardless of what the Constitution says.
    Just to help out those who aren't terribly informed on court politics, those five justices are as follows:

    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!!!

  • by eqkivaro (721746) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @01:26PM (#13714139)

    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.

  • by b17bmbr (608864) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @01:26PM (#13714143)
    as for the kill em all option, if bush was such a warmongering monster, then he wouldn't have done in afghanistan and iraq what he's attempted.

    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.
  • by jbeaupre (752124) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @01:33PM (#13714210)
    Justices generally recuse themselves from cases involving possible conficts of interest. Since she was Microsofts attorney, any case of theirs that reaches SCOTUS will likely trigger her recusing. So if she is pro-microsoft, even indirectly such as supporting the rights of large corporations, the balance of the court shifts against MS. On the other hand, if working with MS left a bad taste for corporations, having her off the case is a plus for MS.
  • by glesga_kiss (596639) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @01:47PM (#13714364)
    You are talking complete tripe. You claim that Bush cares about others, but he started an entirely unneccesary war for the profits of his investors. 26,000 civilans are dead and a country is in civil war. No WMD, no terrorists, no open-arms and no easy win. All of this was predicted, fuck your own history has almost the exact same thing in it with Vietnam. A war unwanted by those you were "saving". Nothing that has happened in Iraq is a surprise to those who study history. Nothing. We were warning about this three years ago.

    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)

    by Eslyjah (245320) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @01:53PM (#13714424)
    Brown would make a fantastic Supreme Court Justice, and not because she's a minority of a minority of a minority. She would be outstanding because she is a true scholar, and because she has been at the forefront of articulating conservative-libertarian judicial philosophy.

    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.
  • by mschuyler (197441) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @01:56PM (#13714464) Homepage Journal
    I agree with her arguments about this class action lawsuit nonsense on trivialities. I would bet 99.9% of users of DOS 6.X didn't even know there was a compression program that came with it. Of those who had some vague inkling that this was a new "Feature" (i.e.: "a bug as defined by the marketing department" -- Manual for the Apple II circa 1979) very few used it. If they did use it, very few were "injured" because of it. And let's just pretend you WERE "injured" by losing some important data, why the hell didn't you create a backup before you tried something new on your precious bits and bytes? Don't plead ignorance there, plead stupidity, and that makes you culpable. Maybe it's you who needs to be sued (or fired) because you didn't use basic procedures to safeguard your data.

    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.)
  • by stanmann (602645) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @02:02PM (#13714517) Journal
    There were and are hundreds of good reasons to go into Iraq. When we went in, the one at the top of the list was that Sadaam Hussein had not proven that he had destroyed his WMDs, so we went with that one. Whether he actually destroyed them or not was not the issue, he was playing shell games. Moving (what we now know were empty) truck convoys from one site to another, and then allowing the site the truck convoy had just left to be inspected while moving the destination site onto the offlimits list, is just one example of his "co-operation".
  • by FreshFunk510 (526493) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @02:13PM (#13714622)
    I see your point but I don't accept it. If one cannot stand up for their morals when they live a modest life, how can you expect them to once they are wealthy and powerful?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @02:24PM (#13714739)
    You did a great job knocking down a straw man argument. Problem is, he never said "the UN could put him in jail" he said "[t]here is probably enough 'bad' about Bush for the UN to put the son of a bitch in jail." Big difference between the two. What he meant was that Bush has committed enough war crimes to be tried and convicted. Not that he ever would be. And I completely agree that he has committed enough war crimes to be tried and convicted.
  • by TheDefenistrator (855055) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @06:02PM (#13717071)
    Just because Bush did not tell you the exact reasons that he found Saddam a threat does not mean that he does not have reasons (be they good or bad). You are most definantly not his advisor and confidant when it comes to matters political, millitary, and international. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the war in Iraq on moral grounds. A single mission assasination on Saddam (if he was the problem) would have negated any need for a war of any sort. Saddam was one evil son of a bitch and he deserves to pay for what he did to thousands of his own citizens. We need to remember, though, that when you rip off the head, the body goes as well. If Saddam fell, I belive that his followers would soon have found themselfs alone and friendless living in some god forsaken hellhole in the middle of the desert. Starting a full scale war on Iraq was most definantly not the answer. Anyone with half a brain and 1/3 of a backbone could tell you that. Many people have died without rhyme or reason because of the war that was started. Do not, however, think that Bush is stupid. He did not get where he is by having an IQ of 70. Bush is intelegent (not overly so, he still shows traces of apelike behavior). Kerry is also intelegent (but again, not overly so). Neither had the public speaking skills that one would expect out of someone with their level of education (college wise). Neither had any freaking idea about military strategy. I am sure, though, that if you sat down with either of them that they would come of no dumber than your average accountant, banker, lawyer, or childrens doctor. They are bolth lacking as far as presidential skills are concerened though (i.e. military strategy, public speaking, charisma, vocabulary, and political prowess). -Taylor
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @07:38PM (#13718003)
    Oh, you want clear cut?

    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.

Gee, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

Working...