You are correct sir. We do.
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.
***
You are correct sir. We do.
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.
"You are against Miers because she is what? Or not what?"
To both the word is 'qualified'
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.
ping
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.
Exactly.
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."
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.
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."
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!
You, not elected, says Miers is not qualified. Bush, elected President, says she is. Priceless.
She HAS a record. You don't like it or agree with it. I can understand that. So what?
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!!
I, not elected, say Bush should have vetoed Campaign Finance Reform. Bush, elected President, didn't. Priceless.
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.
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?
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.
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.