"Source that! It NEEDS to be a headline in itself."
........................................
from Worldnet daily..I know many here dislike worldnet and I take info from there with a grain of salt but this
is from ABA docs and here is a direct quote from Elaine Donnelly:
According to Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, Miers has taken positions as White House counsel that violate the law banning women in combat.
"As While House counsel, Ms. Miers either approved of the Department of Defense's illegal assignments of women in units required to be all-male, which is still continuing in violation of the law requiring notice to Congress in advance, or she was oblivious to the legal consequences of those assignments," she said.
Donnelly believes the actions of Miers could lead directly to a future court ruling requiring women to register with the Selective Service for the draft because they are now being, against the wishes of Congress, assigned to land combat.
..............................................
until we get rulings from this lady no one will truly know what to expect..and then it will be too late ..perhaps it's too late already..Sad day for Bush supporters.
Thanks, WND is overall not too bad. I read the columnists and odd news mostly.
Link?
Do we know if she advocated these positions TO the president? Or did she prepare legal justification for a position the President took, as his lawyer?
Do we even believe that there IS a problem with women serving illegally in combat roles? (I ask that truly not knowing, it's not a field I follow, and I'm sure there are many here who will be happy to tell me all about it).
DO you suppose there will be a separation-of-powers case before the Supreme Court over whether Bush, as commander-in-chief, has the authority to assign women volunteers to combat roles, when congress appears to have tried to preclude it? (I imagine that if there was, and if she really WAS involved int he legal opinions, she would have to recuse herself).
In fact, does she fall into the same recusal quagmire as Gonzalez, or will her role as merely an advocate of the Bush policies (rather than a generator of those policies) be enough to keep her on the court for all those cases the NRO people argued Gonzalez would have to recuse himself from?