Thursday, October 20, 2005
No Roll
Miers Says She'll Give Senators More Info
I've got to hand it to Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy--they're refusing to roll over for Harriet Miers, and that's a good thing. In essentially handing a student back a paper and telling her to do it over, they've also told her that her answers to many questions are simply unacceptable. Her B.S. response to the question of how she'd deal with cases involving the Bush Administration--considering her current position as its lawyer--was met with a bipartisan "Hell No!" and a demand for more clarity about when she would recuse herself from cases. Asking how someone would rule may be off limits, but asking her when she would acknowledge herself to have a conflict of interest is a good way to ensure that, even when it's up to her to decide whether to recuse herself, she's made public statements to which she'd be wise to adhere. Considering that she's proven wily enough that Specter says he's looking forward to the hearings, where a stenographer will write down Miers' responses so she can't deny them later, we'll need this kind of clarity if we're to shame her into recusing herself from the inevitable Bush-related cases that will come before her as a justice.
That, of course, assumes that Miers doesn't suddenly realize that she not only forgot to pay her bar dues, she hasn't quite paid her dues to get a seat on the Supreme Court. Considering that she thought Bush was the best governor EVER, though, I have a feeling she'll be raising her right hand and promising to tell the truth soon enough.
I've got to hand it to Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy--they're refusing to roll over for Harriet Miers, and that's a good thing. In essentially handing a student back a paper and telling her to do it over, they've also told her that her answers to many questions are simply unacceptable. Her B.S. response to the question of how she'd deal with cases involving the Bush Administration--considering her current position as its lawyer--was met with a bipartisan "Hell No!" and a demand for more clarity about when she would recuse herself from cases. Asking how someone would rule may be off limits, but asking her when she would acknowledge herself to have a conflict of interest is a good way to ensure that, even when it's up to her to decide whether to recuse herself, she's made public statements to which she'd be wise to adhere. Considering that she's proven wily enough that Specter says he's looking forward to the hearings, where a stenographer will write down Miers' responses so she can't deny them later, we'll need this kind of clarity if we're to shame her into recusing herself from the inevitable Bush-related cases that will come before her as a justice.
That, of course, assumes that Miers doesn't suddenly realize that she not only forgot to pay her bar dues, she hasn't quite paid her dues to get a seat on the Supreme Court. Considering that she thought Bush was the best governor EVER, though, I have a feeling she'll be raising her right hand and promising to tell the truth soon enough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment