pageok
pageok
pageok
Schumer on Miers:
Newsday has an article on Chuck Schumer's reaction to meeting with Harriet Miers today:
  Schumer told a throng of reporters camped outside his Capitol Hill office that Miers either withheld her opinions — or didn't have enough knowledge of landmark privacy rights cases to answer specific questions.
  "I didn't learn answers to so many important questions," the Brooklyn Democrat said. "On many she wouldn't give answers. On many others she deferred, saying 'I need to sort of bone up on this a little more, I need to come to conclusions.'"
  Of course, it's hard to judge that based only on Schumer's recollection; among other things, we don't know exactly what questions Schumer asked.

  UPDATE: For a skeptical view of the Harriet Miers "relaunch," see this column by Dana Milbank.
mdemeusy (www):
Something I was wondering...was Constitutional Law even a required course back when Miers went to law school? Do we know for sure that she even took a Con Law class?

Contrast with Roberts, who told Diane Feinstein the legal reason the court gave in Lopez, and how the statute had to be amended to pass muster.

Of course, I'm sure Miers is going to go read some of these cases before the hearings, but it appears she's really not conversant with this area of the law.
10.18.2005 2:49am
Justin Kee (mail):
Miers . . . dead horse, please . . . stop . . . whipping. I . . . can't . . . keep . . . focused . . . on . . . what . . . side . . . to . . . choose. Roe v. Griswold v. Lochner v. "originalism" v. the third plaintiff who was in Lawrence but is missing v. New London v. . . . Maggie on . . . no marriage for gays . . . stem cells . . . Frist's magical powers of tele-diagnosis . . . v. Bush v. Gore v. . . . please . . . Volokh . . . return . . . to . . . sanity . . . discuss . . . substansive . . . issues . . . can't . . . take any . . . more.
10.18.2005 2:53am
A Guest Who Enjoys This Site:
Well, since the RNC seems intent upon supporting Miers' nomination in deference to Bush, given the lack of viability among any Republicans in '08, given the apparent abandonment of conservative ideals by Republicans in the White House and Congress, and given the ineptness in the marketing of a questionable candidate for the Supreme Court, I'm forced to ask the same question I have sent to the RNC:


I'm leaning toward giving up my decades-long membership in the GOP. Since becoming a member of the modern, Democratic Party is not an option, is there a party out there that represents the old ideals of the Republican Party for me to join?



Personally, the answer I'm currently leaning toward is either an evolutionary anarchist or a straight anarchist, since neither of these choices would result in anymore chaos than we already seem to have with this nomination.
10.18.2005 2:56am
Mahan Atma (mail):
"Miers . . . dead horse, please . . . stop . . . whipping."

No kidding, really, enough with the Miers for now; can't we at least wait until the hearings?

And hey, why no threads on the whole Plame leak investigation. It's a pretty huge story isn't it, and deeply intertwined with various legal issues to boot. Here we are on the eve of indictments being handed down, and yet, not a peep.... strange.
10.18.2005 4:07am
Cornellian (mail):
CNN is reporting that Miers told Specter that Griswold was properly decided and that this is contributing to conservative unease about her.

As a side point I wonder if conservatives really want to argue that Griswold was wrongly decided - that would seem to be a highly unpopular position. I would have thought the easier road to take would be to argue that Roe was distinguishable, not that Griswold was wrong.

My main point though, is that if she doesn't know anything about ConLaw other than what she remembers from law school 30-40 years ago and plus what she can cram in the next few weeks, how is she going to avoid this kind of gaffe other than by completing shutting up and thereby looking clueless?

It's going to be painful to watch her hearings when every Senator there will be questioning her with Roberts' sterling performance still fresh in their minds.
10.18.2005 7:54am
Jocelyn (mail):
Substitute "Democratic Party" for "GOP" in the first sentence and "GOP" for "Democratic Party" in the second, and I could have written this:

"I'm leaning toward giving up my decades-long membership in the GOP. Since becoming a member of the modern, Democratic Party is not an option, is there a party out there that represents the old ideals of the Republican Party for me to join?"

I feel the current system is going to collapse of its own weight soon enough. Wanna create a Centrist Sanity Party, anyone?
10.18.2005 9:09am
Medis:
Why not become an independent? Parties are for suckers (unless you are in on the con, eg an elected official), and split governments are almost always better anyway (at least if you favor relatively small, relatively competent, relatively accountable governments).
10.18.2005 9:25am
corngrower:
schumer? he is a senator, right? Schumer can not give a coherent answer to the constitutional ramifications of a cities jay walking laws.

How can a lawyer that says 'well I would have to look into that point of arcane law', be second guessed? It is the response of a lawyer.

I have a lawyer on retainer. All most every time I ask him a question, I get exactly the same response. "Well, I have to reasearch the law regarding your question. A lawyer wanting to research relevent law. What a moron.
10.18.2005 10:12am
Medis:
corngrower,

So is the idea that Supreme Court Justices need not be more qualified than your personal lawyer? Come to think of it, I guess that IS the idea.
10.18.2005 10:22am
anonymous coward:
"I would have thought the easier road to take would be to argue that Roe was distinguishable, not that Griswold was wrong."

Well, maybe. But you can cobble together an argument that Griswold was right but for the wrong reasons, and try to justify it without so much substantive due process. I think this is a popular move, though not one I'd recommend in a confirmation hearing (hint at discomfort with penumbras, agree there is a right to privacy but leave vague what you mean, say Griswold is settled law and unlikely to come before the Court).
10.18.2005 10:32am
corngrower:
Hi Medis

Still waiting for the disqualifing points of this nominee.

And you would prefer your lawyer, or a Supreme Court Justice, would just give a response to a Constitutional question without any thought. See, you can, and, I can. BUT we are not the nominee.

The Issue is that, you assume Schumer is relating their meeting in an accurate manner. I know that Schumer is lying thru his teeth. He did not ask the question, so Miers did not respound to a question never asked.
10.18.2005 10:45am
Medis:
Sorry, corngrower, I didn't realize you were waiting.

I don't know what you mean by "disqualifying points". What I would say is that she lacks sufficiently relevant and distinguished experiences and accomplishments such that she would be qualified for the Supreme Court. But if you want to call the lack of these qualifications a "disqualifying point," go ahead.

I would also agree that it doesn't really matter what she says in these meetings or hearings, because it won't change the fact that she lacks these experiences and accomplishments.

Finally, I also don't trust the Senators (on other side) to give an honest accounting of their meetings with Miers.

So, I was basically just making fun of your suggestion that Miers need not have any more knowledge of the "arcane" area of Constitutional Law than your personal attorney. But I do think a qualified nominee should have a deep knowledge of at least some important areas related to the Court's work.

In other words, if I ask my personal attorney what I need to do to get a will, and he says, "A 'will'? I dunno ... I'll have to look up this 'will' thing you are talking about" ... it is time to get a new personal attorney.
10.18.2005 10:58am
OrinKerr:
Mahan,

FWIW, I find it rather hard to blog about the indictments in the Plame investigation because no one has been indicted yet. We can guess about what might be happening behind the scenes, but it would be purely speculation, and I'm not sure what I could add to the speculation elsewhere. Given that we don't know whether it's an important story until we know who if anyone will be indicted, it seems a bit premature to focus on it. That's my sense, anyway.
10.18.2005 12:04pm
Nunzio (mail):
Maybe Schumer asked her: "Why is an official considered not to be a state actor for 11th Amendment purposes under Ex Parte Young because the official is considered to be acting outside of any state authority but the official is still considered to be a state actor for 14th Amendment purposes?"
10.18.2005 1:19pm
Jim Beha:
Corngrower,
I think you miss a point when you ask for disqualifying points. In my view, it is the job of the president and the nominee to show that she is affirmatively qualified, not the job of others to find disqualifying points. When you hired your personal lawyer, did you pick a name out of a hat and then try to find disqualfiying points, or did you look for someone who had affirmative indications of quality?
It is rather distressing that even after their recent efforts to "rebrand" the nominee, this administration does not seem to be able to do a very good job of convincing many who are generally sympathetic that she is qualified. (full disclosure: I am not one of those who is generally sympathetic to this administration).
10.18.2005 1:20pm
Redman:
I just obtained this transcript of a secret meeting between Miers and Schumer:

Schumer: What are your views on Griswold?

Miers: Oh, I love all those National Lampoon movies. But, if I had to choose, I think Christmas Vacation was best. Next question.
10.18.2005 3:01pm
corngrower:
Redman, this is the funniest thing I have read in a week.

Medis, She lacks those things that you find important. I would think you would be to busy on the Senate floor to be on the net, but you get a chance to grill her. (Your a senator right?)

Medis and jim b, My lawyer I have on retainer: OK, Well, the reason I write a check to this person every year is to get legal council. When I did request a will, the lawyer did not write one up, the response was; set a meeting,bring this list of info that applies and after the meeting I will have your will in about a month so I have enough time to consult the laws that apply. But hey thats my lawyer. yours just hammered your will out on the olivette on his desk without asking questions or consulting appliciple law.

Medis; What I would say is that she lacks sufficiently relevant and distinguished experiences and accomplishments such that she would be qualified for the Supreme Court.
What did you say? She lacks what you seek? What do you seek? Come on spit it out. What are you looking for? Some one on this board mentioned serving as a judge, as a criteria. Our last Chief justice of the court never did but somehow, he has yet to be called a bad justice. What do you want???
10.18.2005 5:18pm
SimonD (www):
"On many others she deferred, saying 'I need to sort of bone up on this a little more, I need to come to conclusions.'"

"I need to sort of bone up on this a little more"...Need any more be said??
10.18.2005 5:30pm
NickM (mail) (www):
How much of Miers' answers to Schumer was really about satisfying the public demand that she be seen meeting with Senators while not giving him any information he will be able to use when arguing against her before the nomination is voted on? Schumer has been one of the most vociferous opponents of President Bush's judicial nominees acros the board, so she would likely expect that he will not like her answers. Giving "Red Light Chuck" (so nicknamed for his ability to put himself in front of any nearby news camera) as little to use against her as possible would seem to be a valuable tactic.

Nick
10.18.2005 5:41pm
bud (mail):
Why in the world would anyone assume that Chuck Schumer could ask a relevant question about Constitutional law is beyond me, since the man has no idea of the Constitution in the first place.

Doubt me? Look at anything the guy has *ever* said about the 2nd.
10.21.2005 6:25pm