Replies

"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.

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.

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.