WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers, already troubled by a lack of enthusiasm on Capitol Hill, ran into more rough ground Wednesday when senators from both parties rejected her responses to a questionnaire as insufficient.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and the panel's top Democrat, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, complained that her answers were at best incomplete — Leahy said some lawmakers considered them insulting — and asked Miers to resubmit answers to some of the questions, especially those about her work in the White House as counsel to President Bush.
I guess the excuse of 'the dog ate my homework' won't work here.
Miers isn't just between a rock and a hard place--she's being flattened by the rock and hard place. First, she was an uninspired nominee that was selected by the Bush White House out of her loyalties to the president, and possibly to provide an ally on the Supreme Court for Bush if any impeachment proceedings take place (If you believe the rumors). Before she can even say anything, the hard-lined right-wingnuts are shredding her, claiming she's not conservative enough or that she'll uphoad Roe, instead of overturning the law as the wingnuts want. And so, to pacify the right-wingnuts, the White House has to spend PR time claiming that Miers is conservative enough to please them, but that type of White House PR is alienating the moderates who don't want ideologues on the Court. And this White House PR is being played out while Miers is trying to woo moderate senators on both sides of the political spectrum, while at the same time trying to avoid answering specific questions regarding her views on social issues--similar to a la Roberts hearings.
Talk about a three-ring-circus. But it gets better. The Times story continues on:
Specter said it was too soon to say Miers was "in trouble." But he described her nomination process as chaotic and said it was being further confused by backdoor messages from the White House intended to reassure conservative leaders — some of whom went public about those discussions — about what she would be like as a judge.
Now here's the fun details:
When Bush nominated Miers to the high court this month, he told skeptics that they would appreciate her virtues as soon as they got to know her. But after meeting with more than 20 members of the Senate and delivering the 57-page questionnaire to the committee Tuesday, Miers seems no closer to winning them over.
She had a misunderstanding with Specter over what she told him about the right to privacy. She stumbled over a softball question from Leahy about whom she most admired among past Supreme Court justices. Even some Republicans who are inclined to support her came out of their meetings damning her with faint praise.
"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."
Miers' questionnaire did little to improve her standing.
"The answers in the questionnaire that came up — the comments I've heard ranged from incomplete to insulting," Leahy said. "Certainly it was inadequate and did not give us enough to prepare for a hearing. We will need to have more."
The senators' request for more detailed answers was unusual in that it was bipartisan and sent one day after Miers delivered the questionnaire.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a veteran of 21 Supreme Court nominations, said he could not recall a similar situation where senators from both parties requested that a nominee resubmit responses.
Maybe the dog did eat her homework?
Miers is a political hack. She was selected by Bush out of her loyalty, and the fact that she was his personal lawyer. And you can even make the argument that she was selected to the court to be an ally to the White House, if the Valerie Plamegate scandal opens up with indictments against the top Bush aids (Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney) and possibly if an indictment is handed down against the president. The presidents poll numbers have been sinking fast. Next year is the midterm elections. And if the electorate deserts the president and the Republican Party, you could see a possibility that the Democrats could capture Congress. And if the Democrats do take over Congress, you can bet there will be Congressional investigations into five years worth of Bush scandals--there's going to be something that will come up which will be legal grounds for impeachment of President Bush. Hey, the Republicans tried to impeach Clinton for lying about having an extra marital affair. Miers is being played out to create an ally for the Court--not just for the remote possibility of impeachment proceedings, but also to keep much of the Bush agenda on track--such as the cases for torture against Gitmo prisoners, business deregulation, Social Security privitazation. The problem here is that Miers is not a constitutional scholar. She can't answer these questions of constitutional law and precedent. And there's even more. Continuing on:
In their letter, Specter and Leahy gave Miers a week to answer their questions — including a fuller explanation of why she was briefly suspended from the District of Columbia bar for nonpayment of dues, and how she planned to resolve potential conflicts of interest, including recusing herself from cases involving the administration.
In her questionnaire, Miers had said she would "abide by the spirit and the letter" of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 in making recusal decisions. The senators appeared to take umbrage at the sketchy response and responded pointedly.
"We are aware of the statutes and codes that generally govern these matters, but recusal decisions of the Supreme Court justices are more complicated because they are not subject to further review," Specter and Leahy wrote. "The committee would like you to address the issues specific to your situation."
Miers sent back an immediate response saying she would work to provide additional materials. But she also raised eyebrows by disclosing that she had neglected to mention a second suspension from the bar — this one from the State Bar of Texas in 1989, also for nonpayment of dues.
White House officials said the suspension was the result of an administrative oversight in her law firm.
"In the mid-1980s, the law firm took over responsibility for paying the annual dues for all the attorneys of the firm," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "In a bulk annual payment in May 1989, the dues for Ms. Miers and two additional lawyers for the firm were inadvertently left out of that payment. As soon as the firm realized the clerical error, they corrected it and she was reinstated with no disciplinary action or sanctions."
But critics said the omissions and errors suggested Miers might be less meticulous than White House aides had painted her.
She failed to pay her annual dues and was suspended by the DC Bar? She's not as meticulous as the White House has painted her. And there was another supension from the State Bar in Texas over non-payment of dues. What is going on here?
I just have to shake my head and laugh.
No comments:
Post a Comment