THE TROUBLE WITH HARRIET [Michelle Malkin on Miers]

Michelle Malkin's Blog ^ | 10-20-2005 | Michelle Malkin

[GregoTX]

You are correct sir. We do.

[conservative blonde]

Just recently Ginsberg was asked to recuse herself from an ACLU case because she was/is an active member in that group. She didn't recuse. I think there is wiggle room for judges in recusal from cases.

[Jim Verdolini]

"You are against Miers because she is what? Or not what?"

To both the word is 'qualified'

[JohnnyZ]

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.

Life is not all about political parties.

That's the entire point of being conservative, principled, honest, first, and Republican second, or fourth, or fifth.

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[ConservativeDude]

I'd sure like to see the member of that cmtee. take out Specter, for his own good of course, seeing as he's a very sick man and all....I'm thinking the workload is too much for him and he needs fewer duties in the Senate ("all those in favor say "aye"!).

"Do I hear nominees for a new chair?"

"Senator Coburn?"

"Yes. I nominate myself."

"All those in favor say "aye!"

applause...Coburn picks up gavel.

"Now....where were we. Oh, and by the way, Sen. Leahy? Um, I am not going to continue with that "distinguished colleague" crap, ok? I'm sure you're ok with that....Excuse me while I take this call from the VP..." etc. etc.

One can always have alittle fun. That would be great.

[thoughtomator]

You are against Miers because she is what? Or not what?

Exactly.

[Texas Federalist]

My experience on the City Council helps me understand the interplay between serving on a policy making board and serving as a judge. An example, of this distinction can be seen in a vote of the council to ban flag burning. The Council was free to state its policy position, we were against flag burning. The Supreme Court’s role was to determine whether our Constitution allows such a ban. The City Council was anxious to encourage minority and women-owned businesses, but our processes had to conform to equal protection requirements, as well.

What is with the last sentence? It discusses a topic in the concluding sentence (encouraging minority and women owned businesses) that is unrelated to the previous paragraph (a vote of the council on flag burning). This structure is reminiscent of Ralphie's essay in "A Christmas Story":

"What I want for Christmas is an official Red Ryder BB Gun with a compass in the stock and this thing which tells time. I think that everyone should have a Red Ryder BB Gun. They are very good for Christmas. I don't think that a football is a very good Christmas present."

[libstripper]

There definitely is. The wiggle room only shrinks to almost nothing when the case in question is one on which the judge gave advice as a government attorney; recusal is close to mandatory there. If the case simply involves an organization the judge was a member of, then it's much more within the judge's discretion. The problem with Miers is that she may have directly given advice to President Bush on the policy being disputed in a number of cases that come before her.

[Racehorse]

Just recently Ginsberg was asked to recuse herself from an ACLU case because she was/is an active member in that group. She didn't recuse. I think there is wiggle room for judges in recusal from cases.

Yep.

With respect to U.S. Supreme Court Justices, the law amounts to a suggestion the justices are free to ignore, and do.

Lieberman and Leahy once penned off a demand to Rehnquist that Scalia recuse himself from a case.  Rehnquist wrote back, explaining the justices strived to comply with the law and their pursuit of the issue was "ill advised."

[ALWAYSWELDING]

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.

Should we have spoken up about Souter? How about O'Connor? Kennedy? All of these had some conservative questions. BUT, conservatives went along anyway and this is what it got us. Property rights down the tubes, abortion on demand, environmentalism run amuck.

No, if conservatives had demanded better, we would be in the shape that the libs are in judicially and not the other way around.

If we want to continue with this charade, keep compromising, just keep on compromising.

I'd just like to know when we're gonna wise up. If not after O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter then when?

GIVE IT TO ME AGAIN BABY... AND THIS TIME PUT SOME HEAT ON IT!

[caisson71]

You, not elected, says Miers is not qualified. Bush, elected President, says she is. Priceless.

[caisson71]

She HAS a record. You don't like it or agree with it. I can understand that. So what?

[caisson71]

YES I can have it both ways. When someone like the Klintoon nominates, based on his record and actions, I reserve my right to voice my opposition because i feel his actions are not always for the good of this country. However, HE IS STILL PRESIDENT!!

[Wormwood]

You, not elected, says Miers is not qualified. Bush, elected President, says she is. Priceless.

I, not elected, say Bush should have vetoed Campaign Finance Reform. Bush, elected President, didn't. Priceless.

[caisson71]

You only know what the press wants you to know. You've never had a conversation with her or had her address your concerns. The President has.

[JeffAtlanta]

Congress, you and I can disagree but absent a murder charge, we're acting like the Democrats - "she's not conservative enough". Bunk!!

The problem is that we have no idea what she is. What if she decides cases by what she likes rather than by what the constitution says?

[rob777]

But, Bush acts as the effective leader of his party. We should largely trust him on these issues.





I disagree, we have an obligation to hold our elected officials feet to the fire. We do not give up our capacity for critical judgment once we have elected someone. Such an approach is just asking to be taken advantage of.

[rob777]

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.






If he did something that I agreed with, I would not be critical regardless of party affiliation. On the other hand, I would be critical if he did something that I disagreed with, regardless of party affiliation. In fact, I would be more critical of someone I supported doing the wrong thing because I would expect more out of such a politician. We have a right to expect a return on our investment.

[Impeach98]

Thanks for the PING!

Ahh, when will the WH and RNC types realize that they are just disappointing their base more and more each day.

You've embarrassed us all with an inferior pick for SCOTUS.

STOP THE BLEEDING - we're on YOUR SIDE. You don't need to keep rubbing salt in the wounds by telling us what a great conservative constitutional scholar she really is, if we'd only wait to see her not answer any questions in the hearings.

It's time for the REAL PICK for SCOTUS. Harriet Miers was obviously the sacrificial lamb, the "set the bar low" candidate so that the REAL nominee will look stellar by comparison.

That or else this is a bad SNL skit and we're all stuck in it as extras.