pageok
pageok
pageok
Miers on the War on Terror:

David observes that Miers may have been chosen for a willingness to uphold the administration's policies in the War on Terror. I recall that when AG Gonzales was under consideration, there was much talk that he might have to recuse himself from war-related cases.

Does anyone know whether limitations would apply to Miers? Will she have to recuse herself in War on Terror cases? I don't know this area of law and practice very well, so comments are open if anyone has thought about this.

Jackjohn (mail):
Ed Whelan covered this extensively at www.nationalreview.com when Gonzalez was rumored to be Bush's pick for SCOTUS.

What about that fact that Miers is gay? Won't that alienate Bush's base?
10.3.2005 11:53am
Hank:
Whether or not the rules of ethics require Miers to recuse herself, she will not "have to" do so, any more than Scalia had to in the Cheney case. After Bush v. Gore, anything goes.
10.3.2005 12:24pm
Nobody (mail):
Hank is correct. There is no circumstance in which a justice of the US Supreme Court "has to" recuse him or herself. Even if, for example, a Justice owned a significant equity stake in a litigant before the court, he or she would not "have to" recuse him or herself from hearing the case.
10.3.2005 2:18pm
david blue (mail) (www):
True, though the Scalia/duck flap (pun intended, I'm afraid) suggests that it's a bad idea to ignore the "appearance of impropriety" standard too much. Under the usual rules for recusal that SCt Justices apply, I would think that the legality of any policy in which Miers had a hand in developing would be something from which she should recuse herself.
10.3.2005 10:03pm