Skip to main content

View Diary: Picking their judge (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What paperwork? (none)
    She's not a jurist. She's written no opinions. She's just a lawyer and her work product is protected by client confidentiality. If she's published any articles in law journals, they would be fair game, but she doesn't have a public paper trail.

    "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"

    by Kestrel on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:52:29 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Paperwork (none)
      I was given to understand that she spent a lot of time in the White House on their legal team. She ought to have a lot of paperwork. She ought to know something about all the issues of the day: the Plame affair, the run up to the war in Iraq, Guantanamo, legal opinions on keeping prisoners without access to legal counsel, whatever. At least she ought to have an opinion on them.

      Just because she wasn't a judge doesn't mean she has no history!

      Liberal Thinking

      Think, liberally.

      by Liberal Thinking on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:06:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Confidentiality.... (none)
        That's the line we're going to hear.  I think they need to ask her about ALL of those issues.  She must have advised the Administration on each of those matters, but I'll bet she "can't answer" due to confidentiality or privelege or whatever the actual term is....  

        I think it's a brilliant strategy on the Administrations part.  Nominate someone that no one knows about and can't talk about her work because of confidentiality.  Although, since the White House is the People's House I think we could just agree to let her talk.... smirk!  I think they want the Dems to protest her so they can go nuclear then they can put in someone they really like.

        Who will spin the spinners?

        by stas61690 on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 05:45:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Clearly (none)
      Maybe I didn't make that quite clear. With Roberts, Democrats asked for information, some of which was never released, about his work. Democrats ought to ask for similar information about the work that Miers has done for the White House. This information is pertinent to making a decision. Unless the White House releases this information about her there may be no basis for voting for or against her.

      The more senators who don't vote in favor of a nominee, the less moral backing they have if they are confirmed. Even if Miers is confirmed, the degree of Yes votes is going to be scrutinized. Senators who aren't comfortable voting No can still register a protest by abstaining. This is a way to put pressure on the White House to release more information.

      If a fillibuster isn't appropriate, that should not mean that Democrats simply give up. There are other ways to respond.

      Liberal Thinking

      Think, liberally.

      by Liberal Thinking on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:12:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site