Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Yeah, Harriet's a Liar...

...not that there was ever any doubt. There was simply no way that she had never indicated a position towards Roe to anyone, it was rediculous for Thomas to say, and it was equally rediculous for Miers to say.

Anyway, moving on, I think that it is not just total lunatics like Sam Brownback who are opposing Miers from the right. I am increasingly convinced that Specter really dislikes Harriet Miers, and is very angry at the White House over this nomination.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, and senior Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont agreed Wednesday to begin Miers' hearings on Nov. 7, but also jointly sent a letter to the White House counsel asking her to more fully answer a questionnaire she turned in Tuesday.
Specter and Leahy said both Republicans and Democrats on the committee felt she did not tell them enough.

"The comments I have heard range from incomplete to insulting," Leahy said.

"Senator Leahy and I took a look at it and agreed that it was insufficient," Specter said.
The two committee leaders want the answers from Miers before Wednesday, Oct. 26, another bump in the road for the 60-year-old White House counsel. "I think it's been a chaotic process, very candidly," Specter said.

Further, I stated before that the most important question about this nomination will be its effect on how the Court handles Presidential Power issues, and questioned whether Bush's choice of Miers comes down to just that. I continue to believe that Harriet Miers on the Court would be a direct threat to judicial independence. Sens Specter and Leahy appear to share this exact same concern, asking on the questionaire precisely what I said should be asked of her (are Specter and Leahy reading my blog?).
Specter and Leahy also want her to explain specifically how she would handle cases dealing with the Bush administration, where she now serves in the important legal post of White House counsel. In her questionnaire response, Miers said she would comply with the "spirit and letter of the law ... the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and other applicable requirements."

Specter and Leahy responded: "We are aware of the statutes and codes that generally govern these matters, but recusal decisions of Supreme Court justices are more complicated because they are not subject to further review. The committee would like you to address the issues specific to your situation."

On that note, I stop, and apologize for my inability to address the most important issue of the day, Fitzmas. Unfortunately, as a college student running my blog solo it is very difficult to keep up with these things, and while I would love to join the fray of people beating up on Rove and Libby lately, I simply have neither the time nor manpower to do so on this blog (and Camus is useless, can't even remember his username to post).

No comments: