—
"Even if he [Carswell] is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers," Hruska declared. "They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there."
Personally, my own opinion is that with Shrub and Dick Cheney in the White House, the federal government already has all the mediocre people it can use — and then some.
II. Where’s Roman Hruska When We Need Him?
—
Back to Main
October 3, 2005
WB: Where’s Roman Hruska When We Need Him? ++
Comments
Well Bush is “the most brilliant man” she ever met.
But for her Bush will get some flak from the right again and there is little the Dems will find on her record that can be used against her.
Altogether she will sail through the Senate just like Roberts without much discussion and a decent majority.
The shit will hit the fan later. As she is rabit loyal to Bush I expcet her to vote personally pro-Bush in any case coming to the Supreme Court – no matter how much the law will be bend. That might even be the reason why he wants to have her in place there.
She’s also knows where the bodies are buried, as his piece from the Philadelphia Daily News tells us:
But she does know better than just about anyone else where the bodies are buried (relax, it’s a just a metaphor…we hope) in President Bush’s National Guard scandal. In fact, Bush’s Texas gubenatorial campaign in 1998 (when he was starting to eye the White House) actually paid Miers $19,000 to run an internal pre-emptive probe of the potential scandal. Not long after, a since-settled lawsuit alleged that the Texas Lottery Commission — while chaired by Bush appointee Miers — played a role in a multi-million dollar cover-up of the scandal.
There’s more at that URL. From Corrente.
i hope somebody grills her on her definition of “brilliant”
Posted by: b real | Oct 3 2005 16:30 utc | 3
If they do that, she can accuse them of high-tech witch burning.
Posted by: eftsoons | Oct 3 2005 17:08 utc | 4
If James Baker was the Bush family consigliere, does that make Miers the Mayberry Madame?
Posted by: 4-fingers | Oct 3 2005 17:09 utc | 5
If they do that, she can accuse them of high-tech witch burning.
Posted by: eftsoons | Oct 3 2005 17:11 utc | 6
According to Steve Clemons David Frum, Billmons first link in the Roman Hruska post, changed his piece after posting and cut out this bit from his unredacted post:
She rose to her present position by her absolute devotion to George Bush. I mentioned last week that she told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. To flatter on such a scale a person must either be an unscrupulous dissembler, which Miers most certainly is not, or a natural follower. And natural followers do not belong on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Why would he cut that?
The shit will hit the fan later. As she is rabit loyal to Bush I expcet her to vote personally pro-Bush in any case coming to the Supreme Court – no matter how much the law will be bend. That might even be the reason why he wants to have her in place there.
Scalia’s hunting expeditions with Cheney notwithstanding, unless the Court decides to completely shred the Canons of Ethics, Miers’ position as White House Counsel will likely require recusal from any case involving the concurrent activities of White House personnel.
If Bush IS looking to pack the court in anticipation of criminal indictments, he’s gonna be sorely disappointed.
Posted by: Night Owl | Oct 3 2005 20:33 utc | 10
The good news is that BushCo are more worried about the s hitting the f than a lot of us imagined. For the ‘family’ to do this straight after two crony scandals means that they believe things are getting desperate.
The other good news is that as most us knew and neocons secretly feared, when it comes to a choice between power and ideology BushCo will take power every time. Yeah I know that shouldn’t be anything to celebrate but it is possible that Rove is off his game and has underestimated the reaction from conservative ‘intellectuals’ who regard the takeover of SCOTUS as the raison d’etre for tolerating BushCo incompetence and corruption.
@ Night Owl I’m sure you are much more cognisant of established SCOTUS dogma and procedures than I could ever be but I wouldn’t consider anything the court has done in the past to neccessarily reflect the way it would behave when dealing with BushCo scum and sleaze.
If the things that really matter to BushCo’s power base ie News Corp, a few large corporations and their backers stick with BushCo when it gets put under real pressure, anything that has gone before will be irrelevant.
Whoever is making the charges against BushCo will be painted as partisan therefore BushCo keeping their partisan supporters in place will be ‘sold’ to the people as fair enough. ‘Smart thinking’ by patriots determined to ensure the republic doesn’t go to hell in a handbasket courtesy of a few pinkos and old democrat hacks.
I mean 5 years ago did anyone really think that any US administration could conceivably attempt to tear up the Geneva Convention much less sell it to the populace as a sensible move by committed Amerikans?
I suspect though that BushCo may have overreached itself. Has Murdoch ever turned on a politician in the US before? When he does it gets very nasty as I’m sure Mrs Thatcher can attest.
That is probably the only hope the US constitution has. Certainly the demopublicans are going to spend the next little while earnestly debating the best course of action and achieving bugger all apart from a bit of mud on the nose from placing the foot in the mouth.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 3 2005 21:36 utc | 11
Brilliant series of posts, Billmon. I haven’t seen you this cheerful since forever.:)
Posted by: vachon | Oct 4 2005 0:11 utc | 12
Billmon, you might want to note that “Operatiion Fuck the Sunnis” is in full swing. The Iraqi Parli-Thing held an unannounced vote yesterday that rigged the October 15th vote for approval. It’s the kind of naked power grab that you’d expect of some third-world rathole (which we’ve sacrificed to set up) or Tom Delay.
Posted by: Brian C.B. | Oct 4 2005 0:21 utc | 13
Miers’ position as White House Counsel will likely require recusal from any case involving the concurrent activities of White House personnel.
That’s the funniest nonsense I’ve heard all day.
Seriously, Roberts and Miers may prove to be some of the worst things the Cheneyburton administration have done to America.
There will be no recusal if the Abramoff-Plamegate corruption ever shows up at the Supreme Court.
There will be no free elections in 2006. Oh, they’ll wave the flag, and whichever party- likely Republicans unless the fire in Right Blogistan catches- gains seats, they’ll be solid Company players.
The Endless War has just gotten started.
It’s the kind of naked power grab that you’d expect of some third-world rathole (which we’ve sacrificed to set up) or Tom Delay.
Aren’t you being a little unfair to third-world ratholes?
Posted by: Billmon | Oct 4 2005 0:45 utc | 15
She probably does not need to recuse for any war crime detainee abuse stuff as neither would Roberts, so a better choice than Gonzales for any would be Pinochet/Milosovic future. They must be aware at this point that torture is not a necessary component of war.
Posted by: YY | Oct 4 2005 1:54 utc | 16
That’s the funniest nonsense I’ve heard all day.
Glad I amused you.
28 USC 455 states:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
Miers is White House Counsel, which means that she would be specifically covered by subsection (b)(3). Additionally her previous position Deputy Chief of Staff also precludes her under (b)(1).
Now you may find it strangely comforting to be so nihilistily cynical, but I can assure you that the legal system in this country has not yet become so compromised a sitting Justice, even Scalia, would lightly flaunt such a specific provision of Federal Law.
This isn’t a buddies’ hunting trip we’re talking about. Miers was the assistant to, and attorney for, the President. Under any basic rule of jurispriudence, she can not sit in judgement of events that occured at the White House during her tenure there.
Posted by: Night Owl | Oct 4 2005 3:11 utc | 17
Any reason to believe the outrage is genuine and not a charade — some sort of maneuver??
Posted by: eftsoons | Oct 4 2005 3:38 utc | 18
Impartiality may be reasonably questioned just for being appointed by the jerk. I would think anyone without direct involvement in legal advice or policy of torture is going to get away without recusal, or rather it is thought that they will be able to sit without recusal. In any case avoiding torture trials is a bigger motivation that you would think.
Posted by: YY | Oct 4 2005 4:07 utc | 19
Perhaps the people who are really running the show don’t give a shit about criminal indictments of Bush. Miers’ utility is not to protect Bush himself but rather to protect the corporate hold on power.
-Oddly, if I believe that, then I almost have to believe any war crimes trial of Bush is just as much fluff and distraction as the impeachment trial of Clinton. Rats.
Posted by: mismn | Oct 4 2005 5:05 utc | 20
Digby has a pretty good take on the Miers nomination vapors pandemic amongst the repubs:
It’s important to recognize, finally, what Karl Rove and the Bush administration, with the help of the modern Republican apparatus under Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed is all about. They are building a political machine, not a political movement. I find it very amusing that the right wing “intellectuals,” from their ivory tower think tanks and millionaire supported sinecures at political magazines, have still failed to recognize that.
“She’s the kind of person you want in your corner when all the chips are being played,” said one friend, Joseph M. Allbaugh, former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Posted by: anna missed | Oct 4 2005 5:25 utc | 21
YY,
Hard to believe she had no conversations at any time with Bush, et al. about the Gonzales memo, either as assistant COS or WHC. Hell, she might even be deposed as a material witness to meetings with Bush, Gonzales, and others.
Whatever the circumstances, Miers has far too much intimate knowledge of this White House’s activities to be considered impartial under ANY standard of reasonableness.
I sincerly hope some enterprising Senator brings this serious conflict up at her hearing.
Posted by: Night Owl | Oct 4 2005 6:28 utc | 22
“I sincerly hope some enterprising Senator brings this serious conflict up at her hearing.”
That would be the same Senate that sat on it hands after the Florida debacle in 2000 wouldn’t it?
Night Owl I’m not having a go at you I agree that Miers and probably Roberts as well should recuse themselves from anything involving the BushCo administration. They won’t if they think they can pull it off tho.
BushCo has just made Roberts Chief Justice when he has associates with huge amounts of experience and who would have met his conservative agenda to pick from. I wonder what that is about? There are many problems with Roberts as chief Justice not the least of which is his relative youth. I imagined that the chief justice gig would be like the Pope number. If the applicant isn’t going to shuffle off within a reasonable period of time they won’t get picked, less they get a bit swollen with power and yer stuck with them. Roberts is going to be around for several decades and I would imagine recusal type decisions ultimately rest with him.
When we think about Florida in 2000 I seem to remember that Miers predecessor O’Connor had an interest in the outcome. ie she had been overheard complaining that if Gore got elected she couldn’t retire for at least another term yet she didn’t recuse herself. She gave the repugs the outcome they needed and then hung around for a term to try and flummox the world into thinking the whole retirement thing was a furphy.
BushCo may well have overestimated it’s power but I’m certain that if it needs to it is going to attempt to use the Supreme Court to protect itself.
I don’t have a lot of faith in people who are selected by the powerful into positions of power. Every now and then one bucks the system but judges around the world have been finding reasons to justify decisions of their nation’s executive since courts have had the power to judge the executive.
This is certainly not just a US thing and even more weirdly its not a partisan political thing. That is even in countries where a judge being aligned with a particular political party is considered unethical the judiciary still generally supports the executive. They even do it when the executive is the sworn enemy of the administration that put them on the bench.
I don’t really know what the mechanism is or how it works but supreme/high courts may take on executive administrations on some ‘minor’ issues but when it is serious and particularly where public opinion is divided the courts back the boss.
I realise that sounds like some dark conspiracy involving the Lord Chancellor in British type systems but in most cases I doubt its more than ‘momentum’.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 4 2005 8:22 utc | 23
I think it was Emily Litello, not Litella. She couldn’t understand why some people had a problem with violins on TV.
Posted by: Nevermind | Oct 4 2005 10:55 utc | 24
Night Owl, do you seriously think the Company really cares about the Law?
Watch these two take Scalia’s lead.
And totally throw out any statue that would recuse them from anything.
Where have you been the last six years to expect them to follow the law?
Watch what happens to all of Fitzgerald’s work and indictments- if he delivers them.
Like the Frist/ DeLay scandals, they will only serve to purge Partei members the Company finds unacceptable.
Just sayin’.
Roberts is going to be around for several decades and I would imagine recusal type decisions ultimately rest with him.
Recusal decisions rest with the individual Justices.
Now, I know what you’ll say, “Oh she’ll just refuse to recuse herself.” But for a rookie Justice in her first term to so blatantly disregard a specific provision of Federal conflicts statute is really stretching it. Were she to be so bold, she would discredit whatever rest of her career she might have on the bench. It would also be more than legitimate grounds for removal if and when a Democratic majority reclaims Congressional power.
Under these circumstances, it is not so easy to say that Justice Miers would simply disregard such a clear and obvious conflict by refusing to recuse herself from a case involving White House matters with which she had personal knowledge.
What’s more, once they don their robes, Justices have a funny tendency to start exhibiting an independence unseen during their earlier careers. You have to kiss alot of ass to get to be Justice, but once you are there you truly answer to no one, not even the President.
Am I saying that I know Meirs will recuse herself if and (hopefully) when the White House indictments start flying? Certainly not. But I would not summarily dismiss, as a few have here, the overwhelming legal, ethical, and institutional pressures inherent in such a decision.
NOTE:CJ really doesn’t have much more authority than anyone else on the court. He can decide who writes what opinions, which became somewhat of a contentious issue with the Rhenquist court at times. (Roberts answer when questioned by Feingold was that he did not believe in gamesmanship as far as opinion writing is concerned because it would disrupt the collegial atmosphere among the Justices.) Other than that rather minor procedural influence, the CJ is really just first among equals.
Posted by: NIght Owl | Oct 4 2005 16:12 utc | 26
“She’s the kind of person you want in your corner when all the chips are being played,” said one friend, Joseph M. Allbaugh, former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
This can be read two ways. Miers was the one that cleaned up (and kept on cleaning) Georgie’s record prior to his first run at politics.
“During Bush’s reelection campaign for governor, she was put in charge of squelching rumors about Bush’s dubious National Guard service.”
She was also there on Aug 6 2001 when he read the memo stating Bin Laden’s intention to fly planes into American buildings.
“It was she who handed Bush the crucial ‘presidential daily briefing’ hinting at terrorist plots against America just a month before the Sept. 11 attacks.”
She knows where ALL the dirt is. Could be it’s simply payoff time. A SCOTUS seat is the ultimate safehouse. Can a SCOTUS justice be subpoenaed?
Could also be rat desertion time from the ship of fools. Could be funny to watch. Let’s make a deal!
Posted by: PeeDee | Oct 5 2005 0:12 utc | 27
Night Owl,
I certainly hope you are correct about the gravity of such a decision forcing her to do the right thing.
What worries me about that safeguard is that the standard may shift. In x years time, looking back, we will likely judge Bush v Gore to have been an illegal intervention which led directly to the ruination of the country. ANYTHING else, by contrast, will likely be small potatoes.
And your comment about “First among equals”. That’s true of Tony Bliar, is it not?
Posted by: john | Oct 5 2005 20:16 utc | 28
recall that bush really wasn’t qualified to be put into the position that he’s in now either. and look at how he’s run w/ that power. these people are simply not accountable to the public interest. period. they have to be stopped at all costs. bush has been a failure in nearly every venture he’s been used in. and it’s looking like historians are going to be pinning the failure of “the american experiment” on him as well. let’s hope it stops there, while us idiots are still standing letting this guy control the most powerful nuclear arsenal ever known.
Posted by: b real | Oct 5 2005 20:28 utc | 29