Malkin ping!
Posted on 10/20/2005 11:19:05 AM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
I have stayed away from the depressing and divisive subject of Harriet Miers for a few days. It was a healthy little respite. But things have taken yet another grim, embarrassing turn--and it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine that this nomination will make it to the scheduled Nov. 7 Senate hearing date.
First, if you haven't already read it, check out Miers' 57-page questionnaire (in PDF via NRO), which she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The blogosphere has brutally dissected Miers' answers, non-answers, and unintelligible gibberish. See, for example, Steve Bainbridge, Prawfsblawg, Victor Fleischer, James Lindgren, Patterico, and Bench Memos.
Now, Sens. Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy have rendered their verdict: They want a do-over. Words like "underwhelming," "inadequate," and "insulting" are streaming out of Washington. And it's not just from the lips and keyboards of elitist/sexist pundits. Via WaPo:
Barely concealing their irritation during a 35-minute news conference at the Capitol, Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) called the lobbying on Miers's behalf "chaotic," and said the answers she provided Monday to a lengthy questionnaire were inadequate. "The comments I have heard range from incomplete to insulting," Leahy said.
They sent Miers a three-page letter asking for more detailed responses in several areas, and Specter said he has asked the Bush administration for more documents concerning her work as White House counsel. Specter said Miers must provide "amplification on many, many of the items" included in the first questionnaire.
Miers quickly replied, writing that she would comply with the new request. She also wrote that "as a result of an administrative oversight," her Texas law license was suspended for 26 days in 1989 because of unpaid dues. On Monday, Miers disclosed that her D.C. law license was briefly suspended last year because of unpaid annual dues.
Announcing plans to start the hearing Nov. 7 despite Democrats' request for more time, Specter told reporters: "This is going to be an unusual hearing where I think all 18 senators are going to have probing questions." The panel has 10 Republicans and eight Democrats.
This also jumped out at me and exacerbated my already queasy stomach:
At yesterday's news conference, Specter appeared to be annoyed with Miers on several points. He said his staff gave him a "big binder" of legal cases she had handled in private practice, but "she gave us a skimpy little group" of material describing those cases in response to the questionnaire's request for details of her most important cases. "No reason we should know more about her cases than she does," he said.
Specter said he remained perplexed by a disagreement Monday stemming from his meeting with Miers in his office, after which their accounts differed on what the nominee had said about Supreme Court rulings that preceded Roe.
In dealing with 11 Supreme Court nominees, Specter said, "I've never walked out of a room and had a disagreement as to what was said." He smiled politely as Leahy said, "I've never known him to make a mistake on what he heard."
Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers's response to the committee's request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to "the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause" as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.
"There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation -- which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies -- with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.
Go back to Miers' questionnaire and pay special attention to Question 22 on p. 49 to grasp Sunstein's point:
While I was an at-large member of the Dallas City Council, I dealt with issues that involved constitutional questions. For instance, when addressing a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause.
As a non-elite, non-lawyer, non-Beltway pundit might put it: "What the...?!?" If this bizarre gaffe is supposed to demonstrate Miers' sharp legal mind and painstaking attention to detail, God help us all.
President Bush promised Senators that they'd fall in love with Harriet once they got to know her. But the Los Angeles Times reports that Republicans have been damning her with faint praise after emerging from meetings:
"I might have liked a different type nominee myself, but that's the president's choice," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said after his meeting with Miers.
The lackluster beginning of her campaign to be confirmed raises the stakes for Miers, and the president, when she appears before the Judiciary Committee. Senators of both parties say her nomination will succeed or fail based on how well she performs.
Senators and aides have been reluctant to provide details of their meetings with Miers because they do not want to antagonize the White House. But some described her as surprisingly reticent and, in a word used by more than one of them, "underwhelming."
Even those who were impressed said that she offered up little of herself in conversation. "In these meetings she has been very guarded," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
One senator found her much too quiet. The lawmaker had such a hard time hearing Miers that aides had to tell people outside the meeting room to quiet down.
"She doesn't have the gravitas in terms of the constitutional issues," said another senator who has been critical of Miers. The nominee, the senator said, would not answer questions about whether she would recuse herself if issues involving her work with Bush came before the high court.
"Generally when you hold these interviews, people want to show you what they know," the senator said. "She did not respond. Nothing came back."
These accounts do not bode well for Miers' scheduled testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in two weeks. Her supporters might argue that expectations are so low that she will have an easy time appeasing committee members after she has boned up on constitutional law. But John Roberts' stellar, authoritative performance--speaking without notes and jousting vigorously with the panel for four days--set a high standard. Does anyone believe from testimonials like this and this and this that Miers can meet that standard?
On top of all this, add reporting by John Fund and Bob Novak that raises questions about Miers' messy dealings while on the Texas Lottery Commission.
What does it spell? T-R-O-U-B-L-E.
***
So, what is the argument? Isn't the President given any credit for his "thoughtful" nomination? This was no willy-nilly decision and the President has the right and responsibility to select. Congress, you and I can disagree but absent a murder charge, we're acting like the Democrats - "she's not conservative enough". Bunk!!
I really like Michelle.
All you are doing is repeating disinformation. For me, it is a matter of deciding whose decision is more informed, you or the President. I choose the President.
I think they already have.
What is this "well known line of cases"? I am aware of a line of cases starting from 1993 holding just the opposite: the Court recognized a presumptively stigmatic harm ensuing from districts which were drawn for the "predominant" purpose of race and which could not be justified as a "narrowly tailored" effort to serve a "compelling state interest." Such districts are unconstitutional, according to the Court.
Please explain your post, and back it up with citations.
You have a way with words. It took me about 5 paragraphs to say the same thing ;-)
Scumbag was elected president also but that did not give him some right to commit 15 felonies and get impeached.
Bush was elected twice also but that does not give him the right to pony up a crony and bypass highly qualified nominees for such a uniqe and rare opening as a SCOTUS justice.
Malkin should be aware of this well-known line of cases. Apparently she isn't.
Yep.
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers testified in a 1989 voting-rights case that Dallas needed to elect more black and Hispanic city council members, but she didn't like the idea of drawing districts with large minority populations to achieve that result.
[. . .]
Miers' comments were a brief moment in lengthy testimony during a lawsuit in federal district court in Dallas. Black leaders challenged the way city council members were elected in Dallas. Miers had been elected to the council in 1989, just as the battle over racially charged redistricting plans was heating up. The lawsuit led to a court-supervised redistricting plan that enlarged the council from 11 to 14 seats.
Miers testified that the city should keep some at-large seats whose members were elected by voters citywide, not just from small districts. Black leaders opposed at-large districts, viewing them as a tool to limit minority representation.
Miers said at-large members can consider the entire city's interests while politicians elected from local districts must also consider the interests of their own district.
Miers said, however, that one drawback of at-large seats was that many successful citywide candidates came from north Dallas, which is predominantly white and more affluent than south Dallas. (AP Newswire)
The wonder is Dallas held onto their at-large districts for as long they did. In San Antonio we gave up ours in 1977.
"I'm sorry, but I am sick and tired of "conservatives" saying Miers is not good enough. Though I respect their opinions, none of the anti-Miers conservtives has a more convincing argument than President Bush - he was elected President, Miers is his choice."
So, the President's 'trust me' os as strong as everyone else noting her lack of record?
Wow!
I must say, her complete and utter inability to understand the difference between proportial rep and the winner take all system is rather bothersome...
I have supported Miers up to this point, but this DOES worry me that she flat doesn't even understand how our electoral process works.
I mean come on. Yeah, I have taken comparative government and advanced American government, but I really don't know that much more than the average person does. And, certainly a lawyer should know this stuff.
er......proporTIONAL, not proportial.
Heaven help me today.
Okay, let's take this line of reasoning to it's end. This means you won't oppose any of the nominees from the next Democratic President either will you?
You can't have it both ways. We all know he has the authority to nominate Humpty Dumpty, but that doesn't mean we have to shut up about it. We have a right and moral obligation to see the right people on the court regardless of it being a Dem or Pub.
"I am sick and tired of "conservatives" saying Miers is not good enough."
By putting conservatives in quotes are you attempting to say such people are not really conservative? In what way? Because they disagree with President Bush?
I'm sorry, but I have to believe Miers' own words over those of the President.
In dealing with 11 Supreme Court nominees, Specter said, "I've never walked out of a room and had a disagreement as to what was said." He smiled politely as Leahy said, "I've never known him to make a mistake on what he heard."
I suspect Miers told Specter an answer he wanted to hear -- and when he went public, she backed down. Specter's too smart to be played.
Your argument if flawed. We have the right to criticize anybody. But, Bush acts as the effective leader of his party. We should largely trust him on these issues.
That is way different from when a Dem is in office because he would not be acting as our essential representative. We would be supposed to criticize anything he did.
I would make a educated guess that it was just for a time like this that Bush made it clear to Specter that the President's support for Specter's re-election bid hinged on Specter's support for the President's nominees on the Judiciary Committee. There is a rule on that committee that the majority members can remove the chairman of their same party. I don't think Specter wants that fight. He is sounding off now but I think when the Judiciary Hearings start on this nomination of Miers that Specter will not be obstructionist. He owes Bush and he knows it. He also is quite ill. Just take a good look at him, do you think the treatments are working?
The second sentence shows the real problem that's likely to sink this nomination. Miers will be statutorily required to recuse herself from any case where she had a significant role advising the President. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498313/posts
If Miers refuses to answer questions about whether she would recuse herself in cases involving work she did for the President, she's refusing to answer some of the most important, and relevant, questions the senators have to ask her. Those questions are crucial because, at a minimum, the senators legitimately need to know the scope of cases in which she won't be able to participate. She ought at least to explain to them the criteria on which she will base her recusal decisions, a thing she could do without disclosing specific advice she gave to the President on any specific case or group of cases. If she won't or can't answer such questions, she goes a long way to disqualifying herself as a candidate.
This problem also shows that what appears on the surface to be one of her greatest strengths, her apparent likelihood to rule in favor of the administration on WOT cases, actually becomes one of her greatest weaknesses. A principled conservative who had not been directly involved in WOT deliberations would be able to rule on all such cases and support the President, instead of being hamstrung by mandatory recusals.
The most disturbing concern about this nomination comes from another one of Miers' advertised strengths, her great attention to detail. Since she's been the lead person in vetting all of the President's judicial nominees, she had to know the problems presented by the recusal statute. It's hard for me to believe that the President would have nominated her if she'd clearly explained the statute's applicability to her situation and that it would force her to recuse herself in many of the most important WOT case. That he nominated her tells me she probably didn't fully explain this problem to him. Thus, I seriously question her ethics since she was apparently so consumed by ambition to get on SCOTUS that she at least soft pedaled this issue with her client.
"Congress, you and I can disagree but absent a murder charge, we're acting like the Democrats - "she's not conservative enough". Bunk!!"
This is your dividing line, whether she has a murder charge?
Oooh, the "acting like Democrats" gambit. Republicans believe in qualifications, merit. We don't think she's qualified. You won't see that many people saying she's not conservative enough. They either say she's not qualified or that she has given no indication of an originalist judicial theory, or really of any theory at all.
You, like many, simply brush this aside and slur the opponents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.