Guest Blogging Part VI: Senators Ask For Clarifications
Michelle Malkin picked this up this morning from the Washington Post. I saw this as well, and it seems as though Harriet Miers detractors aren't the only people with questions. After filling out her questionnaire and giving it to the co-chairs of the Judiciary committee, they fired back. Cited and linked below is her questionnaire and statements from the Post.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003750.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902402.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/HEM%20Questionnaire%20final.pdf
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.
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.
The two committee leaders -- both of whom voted to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice last month -- said they are bothered by accounts of telephone conference calls in which supporters of Miers reportedly have assured conservative activists that they will be happy with her political views on abortion and other subjects.
"I think it's been a chaotic process, very candidly, as to what has happened, because of all of the conference calls and all of the discussions, which are alleged in the back room," Specter said. "We're looking into them."
The conference calls that Sen. Specter is referring to would be the one admitted to have occurred between Dr. James Dobson, and several GOP activists. This alone would be enough for the committee to really grill her. No, she didn't participate in the call, but Dr. Dobson is on record as stating that Miers would vote to overturn Roe. The information brought out regarding her views on abortion are rooted in her beliefs, and not in jurisprudence. Remember: We don't want activism on the court. Just because the decision was made in the first place on activism--an attempt to right a supposed wrong in society--doesn't mean it should be overturned via the same route.
"A good part of what I'm talking about as chaotic is not the White House," Specter said. "What I'm referring to are all of the forces which are at work out here commanding media attention and commanding public attention."
Leahy said: "We're working hard to carry out our responsibilities, not have this thing taken by winks and nods and quiet promises over conference calls. We'd actually like to know what the heck is going on."
Despite strong conservative opposition to Miers, the nomination is not in trouble, Specter said, but he said the process is among the strangest he has seen in 25 years. "There has been more controversy before this nominee has uttered a formal word than I have ever heard," he said.
The controversy is about what Sen. Leahy described. But we're not talking about conference calls, but about how the administration has presented Harriet Miers. We're being given "winks and nods" from the president and the administration that Harriet Miers is a sound person. I don't doubt she's a sound person, but I want her sound in her judgment when it comes to the law. Yes, she's been a lawyer. Yes, she commanded a 400 lawyer law firm. Yes, she was president of the Dallas Bar and the Texas State Bar. Again, the resume looks nice, but the interview is where it counts. The hearing won't be easy for her as I think that the senators on the committee are getting an idea of just how stealth this woman is.
Chief Justice Roberts keeps being described as a "stealth" candidate. We know that's not true. It's nice spin by the media and the Left, but anyone who paid close attention to the Roberts nomination knows that the White House was open and upfront with Roberts. Within days, we had the initial release of documents showing his judicial philosophy. Within a few weeks, we had every document that the judiciary committee would be poring over. We are now almost done with week three since her announcement, and the White house has assured us that she's fine.
We've been told she's a lawyer, and close personal friend of the president's. She has been for fifteen years. She was with him when he was governor of Texas, has served as his personal lawyer, and if confirmed, would be leaving the White House counsel's office. We've been reminded--numerous ad naseum times--that she's an Evangelical Christian. Again, like her resume, that's nice. But it's all irrelevent. From a character point of view, it's nice.
In a letter to Specter and Leahy, the liberal Alliance for Justice complained that Miers "has produced almost nothing in writing to provide the American people a window into her judicial philosophy."
"Given her sparse public record, it is unclear whether she has a basic working knowledge of the issues that the Supreme Court regularly confronts," wrote Nan Aron, the group's president.
I'm sickened that I even have to cite Nan Aron, but she's right. For once, the Alliance for Justice might have gotten something right. Imagine that; even the Left can figure somethings out. Too bad it took the conservatives to raise the biggest stink to get them to pay attention.
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.
Now, I seem to recall a certain talk show host stating that "interpreting the Constitution wasn't a hard thing to do." Well, if she confuses things like this, what happens when she confuses other things? This sort of goes back to an aide from Andy Card's office pointing out that what they had observed she was indecisive, and had a serious problem with delegating duties. Mr. Sunstein is correct in stating that no such provision exists when it applies to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But below is the part that Mr. Sunstein is referring to. It appears on Page 49, and is the answer to the second question.
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.
Is she serious? If this is the sort of mistake she could make on a questionnaire, I shudder to think of the mistakes she may make on the bench. And it's nice of the White House to try and paint a rosy picture that people are warming up to her, the LA Times had this today. No, people aren't warming up to her.
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."
The attempt to reinvent Harriet Miers isn't working. Pundits are out in force to pound this point home. We know nothing about her basic judicial philosophy, and she's making mistakes with simple questions. There are senators that have raised an eyebrow over whether she is truly qualified. It doesn't bode well when both chairs of the Judiciary Committee are stating that they foresee problems with Miers.
I'd like to take up John Fund's recommendation for the president, and urge the president to do it. Cite a health problem with Harriet Miers, and have her announce her withdrawal. Appoint someone new--preferably one that won't leave a portion of the nation scratching their heads--and in about six months nominate Miers to the appellate court. It's not that we're elitist. We're not sexist. We believe that there should be a solid, clear-cut judicial philosophy that is abided by on the court. We'd prefer it be an originalist point of view rather than an activist point of view. But we can see the originalism on the court in Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts. We could add Miers to the mix, provided she's upfront with the committee and the nation. If not, then she should be voted down.
The White House, too, must be forthcoming. They not only have to convince a nation they were right, but also the senators who will be questioning her. Based on this piece out of the Post today, it seems that the questions have already started. They want answers. So do we.
The blogger Patterico has a couple other things he'd like to add to the mix of things going wrong with her nomination.
http://patterico.com/2005/10/18/3795/she-doesnt-read-books-but-she-sure-can-bowl/
“You know, she’s a very gracious and funny person,” said Joshua B. Bolten, the director of the Office of Management and Budget whom Ms. Miers succeeded as deputy White House chief of staff in 2003. “I was racking my brain trying to think of something specific.”
In the next breath, Mr. Bolten recalled relaxing with her at Camp David. “She is a very good bowler,” he said. “For someone her size, she actually gets a lot of action out of the pins.”
Well, that's nice. Next time I'm bowling and I feel slighted by the rules, I'll be sure to appeal the slight to the Supreme Court so Miers can weigh in, but that's not too helpful. This is like saying that the best you could offer on Justice Ginsburg as to her qualifications is she likes elephants.
Carl Cameron of Fox News tossed aside the credentials and asked [former Texas Supreme Court justices] to describe something Miers did that “led to a demonstrable outcome of a conservative judicial philosophy.” They could not.
“Well, I –I — I will answer it this way,” [John L.] Hill [Jr.] said, citing an instance in which Miers opposed mandatory pro bono work for lawyers in favor of voluntary pro bono work. Cameron pushed again, fruitlessly, for specifics. Moments later, a White House spokeswoman declared the session over, and when a couple of the judges lingered, a handler cut them off with a call of “Gotta go to lunch, Judge.”
Almost sounds like the judge doesn't know much about this woman. It also sounds like the White House handlers are trying to avoid anything that might be embarrassing to the president, to Miers, or to the judges. The more that's dug up, the worse this nominee stinks.
Mistress Pundit
Michelle Malkin picked this up this morning from the Washington Post. I saw this as well, and it seems as though Harriet Miers detractors aren't the only people with questions. After filling out her questionnaire and giving it to the co-chairs of the Judiciary committee, they fired back. Cited and linked below is her questionnaire and statements from the Post.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003750.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902402.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/HEM%20Questionnaire%20final.pdf
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.
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.
The two committee leaders -- both of whom voted to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice last month -- said they are bothered by accounts of telephone conference calls in which supporters of Miers reportedly have assured conservative activists that they will be happy with her political views on abortion and other subjects.
"I think it's been a chaotic process, very candidly, as to what has happened, because of all of the conference calls and all of the discussions, which are alleged in the back room," Specter said. "We're looking into them."
The conference calls that Sen. Specter is referring to would be the one admitted to have occurred between Dr. James Dobson, and several GOP activists. This alone would be enough for the committee to really grill her. No, she didn't participate in the call, but Dr. Dobson is on record as stating that Miers would vote to overturn Roe. The information brought out regarding her views on abortion are rooted in her beliefs, and not in jurisprudence. Remember: We don't want activism on the court. Just because the decision was made in the first place on activism--an attempt to right a supposed wrong in society--doesn't mean it should be overturned via the same route.
"A good part of what I'm talking about as chaotic is not the White House," Specter said. "What I'm referring to are all of the forces which are at work out here commanding media attention and commanding public attention."
Leahy said: "We're working hard to carry out our responsibilities, not have this thing taken by winks and nods and quiet promises over conference calls. We'd actually like to know what the heck is going on."
Despite strong conservative opposition to Miers, the nomination is not in trouble, Specter said, but he said the process is among the strangest he has seen in 25 years. "There has been more controversy before this nominee has uttered a formal word than I have ever heard," he said.
The controversy is about what Sen. Leahy described. But we're not talking about conference calls, but about how the administration has presented Harriet Miers. We're being given "winks and nods" from the president and the administration that Harriet Miers is a sound person. I don't doubt she's a sound person, but I want her sound in her judgment when it comes to the law. Yes, she's been a lawyer. Yes, she commanded a 400 lawyer law firm. Yes, she was president of the Dallas Bar and the Texas State Bar. Again, the resume looks nice, but the interview is where it counts. The hearing won't be easy for her as I think that the senators on the committee are getting an idea of just how stealth this woman is.
Chief Justice Roberts keeps being described as a "stealth" candidate. We know that's not true. It's nice spin by the media and the Left, but anyone who paid close attention to the Roberts nomination knows that the White House was open and upfront with Roberts. Within days, we had the initial release of documents showing his judicial philosophy. Within a few weeks, we had every document that the judiciary committee would be poring over. We are now almost done with week three since her announcement, and the White house has assured us that she's fine.
We've been told she's a lawyer, and close personal friend of the president's. She has been for fifteen years. She was with him when he was governor of Texas, has served as his personal lawyer, and if confirmed, would be leaving the White House counsel's office. We've been reminded--numerous ad naseum times--that she's an Evangelical Christian. Again, like her resume, that's nice. But it's all irrelevent. From a character point of view, it's nice.
In a letter to Specter and Leahy, the liberal Alliance for Justice complained that Miers "has produced almost nothing in writing to provide the American people a window into her judicial philosophy."
"Given her sparse public record, it is unclear whether she has a basic working knowledge of the issues that the Supreme Court regularly confronts," wrote Nan Aron, the group's president.
I'm sickened that I even have to cite Nan Aron, but she's right. For once, the Alliance for Justice might have gotten something right. Imagine that; even the Left can figure somethings out. Too bad it took the conservatives to raise the biggest stink to get them to pay attention.
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.
Now, I seem to recall a certain talk show host stating that "interpreting the Constitution wasn't a hard thing to do." Well, if she confuses things like this, what happens when she confuses other things? This sort of goes back to an aide from Andy Card's office pointing out that what they had observed she was indecisive, and had a serious problem with delegating duties. Mr. Sunstein is correct in stating that no such provision exists when it applies to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But below is the part that Mr. Sunstein is referring to. It appears on Page 49, and is the answer to the second question.
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.
Is she serious? If this is the sort of mistake she could make on a questionnaire, I shudder to think of the mistakes she may make on the bench. And it's nice of the White House to try and paint a rosy picture that people are warming up to her, the LA Times had this today. No, people aren't warming up to her.
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."
The attempt to reinvent Harriet Miers isn't working. Pundits are out in force to pound this point home. We know nothing about her basic judicial philosophy, and she's making mistakes with simple questions. There are senators that have raised an eyebrow over whether she is truly qualified. It doesn't bode well when both chairs of the Judiciary Committee are stating that they foresee problems with Miers.
I'd like to take up John Fund's recommendation for the president, and urge the president to do it. Cite a health problem with Harriet Miers, and have her announce her withdrawal. Appoint someone new--preferably one that won't leave a portion of the nation scratching their heads--and in about six months nominate Miers to the appellate court. It's not that we're elitist. We're not sexist. We believe that there should be a solid, clear-cut judicial philosophy that is abided by on the court. We'd prefer it be an originalist point of view rather than an activist point of view. But we can see the originalism on the court in Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts. We could add Miers to the mix, provided she's upfront with the committee and the nation. If not, then she should be voted down.
The White House, too, must be forthcoming. They not only have to convince a nation they were right, but also the senators who will be questioning her. Based on this piece out of the Post today, it seems that the questions have already started. They want answers. So do we.
The blogger Patterico has a couple other things he'd like to add to the mix of things going wrong with her nomination.
http://patterico.com/2005/10/18/3795/she-doesnt-read-books-but-she-sure-can-bowl/
“You know, she’s a very gracious and funny person,” said Joshua B. Bolten, the director of the Office of Management and Budget whom Ms. Miers succeeded as deputy White House chief of staff in 2003. “I was racking my brain trying to think of something specific.”
In the next breath, Mr. Bolten recalled relaxing with her at Camp David. “She is a very good bowler,” he said. “For someone her size, she actually gets a lot of action out of the pins.”
Well, that's nice. Next time I'm bowling and I feel slighted by the rules, I'll be sure to appeal the slight to the Supreme Court so Miers can weigh in, but that's not too helpful. This is like saying that the best you could offer on Justice Ginsburg as to her qualifications is she likes elephants.
Carl Cameron of Fox News tossed aside the credentials and asked [former Texas Supreme Court justices] to describe something Miers did that “led to a demonstrable outcome of a conservative judicial philosophy.” They could not.
“Well, I –I — I will answer it this way,” [John L.] Hill [Jr.] said, citing an instance in which Miers opposed mandatory pro bono work for lawyers in favor of voluntary pro bono work. Cameron pushed again, fruitlessly, for specifics. Moments later, a White House spokeswoman declared the session over, and when a couple of the judges lingered, a handler cut them off with a call of “Gotta go to lunch, Judge.”
Almost sounds like the judge doesn't know much about this woman. It also sounds like the White House handlers are trying to avoid anything that might be embarrassing to the president, to Miers, or to the judges. The more that's dug up, the worse this nominee stinks.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home