Some participants in the Oct. 3 conference call fear that they will be called to testify at Ms. Miers's hearings. "If the call is as you describe it, an effort will be made to subpoena everyone on it," a Judiciary Committee staffer told me. It is possible that a tape or notes of the call are already in the hands of committee staffers. "Some people were on speaker phones allowing other people to listen in, and others could have been on extensions," one participant told me.It's one thing to grill Miers about the Roe v. Wade. That's what they did to John Roberts. It's an ordinary ritual that any nominee should have to endure. It's quite another thing to make the October 3 conference call the object of an intense investigation, with the participants subpoenaed and expected to hold up to grilling -- under oath -- about what was said. It seems to me that the decision to do that would be tantamount to an open demand that the nomination be withdrawn.
Should hearings begin on Nov. 7 as is now tentatively planned, they would likely turn into a spectacle. Mr. Specter has said he plans to press Ms. Miers "very hard" on whether Roe v. Wade is settled law. "She will have hearings like no nominee has ever had to sit through," Chuck Todd, editor of the political tip sheet Hotline, told radio host John Batchelor. "One slipup on camera and she is toast."...
Should she survive the hearings, liberal groups may demand that Democrats filibuster her. Republican senators, already hesitant to back Ms. Miers after heavy blowback from their conservative base, would likely lack the will to trigger the so-called nuclear option. "The nomination is in real trouble," one GOP senator told me. "Not one senator wants to go through the agony of those hearings, even those who want to vote for her." Even if Ms. Miers avoids a filibuster, it's possible Democrats would join with dissident Republicans to defeat her outright.
October 17, 2005
About those "things" James Dobson "probably shouldn't know."
John Fund writes in the Wall Street Journal about the behind-the-scenes assurances the White House gave pro-life conservatives about Harriet Miers. Will the confirmation hearing delve into the October 3 conference call?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I think the conference call is fair game. The controversy surrounding it should not be directed at the nominee, however, unless it can be shown that specific promises were made.
Mieras is in trouble. All the liberals will have to oppose her and she has weak support from conservatives.
Perhaps the liberals will be saying about the next nominee... anything is better than Miers.
Yes, but if the Dems let Miers on the Court without a fight, knowing with solid evidence that she will vote to overturn Roe, the Dem's base will never forgive them.
I don't get what's improper about the conference call. Doesn't every president "sell" his nominees in similar fashion?
I don't get how records of the call would be relevant to anything, unless the nominee was on the call. If I say here that I am confident that Miers (and Roberts, for that matter) would vote to overturn Roe, can all of us be subpoenaed and cross-examined?
If Dobson and others were told that the nominee had made specific promises to the President, that would be damaging, and worth uncovering, in my opinion. On the other hand, I can think of a couple fairly benign things that fit the "I know but I can't tell" description. Perhaps Dobson was told the President's short list for the next Supreme Court vacancy. Or he was told specifics about why certain potential nominees were vetted and rejected. In either of those cases, I think that the contents of the conference call shouldn't be made public.
Well, the fact that Bush called Miers a "traiblazer" and "pioneer" should have already put everyone on notice that Miers is out to legislate from the bench. Today, abortion, tomorrow, Christian prayer in schools and Christian school vouchers.
Even if Miers is pro-life, is there any reason at all to believe that she would be a sure vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? I highly doubt it. If you are a Democrat, you'd have to expect that Miers is the most ambiguous nominee on Rove v. Wade Bursh would nominate. Unless she really step in it during the hearings, I think you will see a lot of Democrat support.
Jim, it is noteworthy. I just don't get why it's illegal. Are judges precluded from giving opinions on nominees? Maybe the lawyers could speak to this.
Right, Adriana, and they're building those concentration camps for homosexuals as we speak!
Adriana wrote: Well, the fact that Bush called Miers a "traiblazer" and "pioneer" should have already put everyone on notice. . . .
Just as long as Bush doesn't call her a crusader.
Post a Comment