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.
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."
Great post, btw.
We do not believe she was the "chief vetter". She was on the committee. We have a feeling she didn't have a lot of input on the committee either. We think the VP did most of the vetting. We are not going to go so far as to say her job was to get coffee and donuts, but We think you catch our line of thinking.
We are concerned that much of the promotion from within the BA comes about as a result of who is able to apple polish best for the President. This is not good.
If this woman cries in the committee hearing, the nomination will be lost. There is no crying in Senatorial Hearings.