Miers Nomination: The Counsel Conundrum
---
I happen to agree with President Bush that he is entitled to withhold documents relating to Harriet Miers' service as White House Counsel.
Which is yet another reason why the nomination was outrageous to begin with.
Remember, most people who oppose Miers' nomination are doing so because, in their opinion, she lacks either jurisprudential credentials or ideological credentials. (I fall into the former camp.)
But the White House should have known that it would wind up trapped with respect to both camps:
"She is qualified."
It would be different if Miers had some — any — paper trail or line item on her résumé that suggested sufficient credentials. But instead we've now deteriorated from "You should trust me..." to "You have no choice but to trust me..."
But of course, the Senate does have a choice — to reject her nomination. And while the president may have no choice but to withhold the documents "for the sake of future presidents," he does of course a choice regarding this present nominee.
How soon before the unspeakable is spoken of and the unthinkable is thought about?
More thoughts at SCOTUSblog.
Which is yet another reason why the nomination was outrageous to begin with.
Remember, most people who oppose Miers' nomination are doing so because, in their opinion, she lacks either jurisprudential credentials or ideological credentials. (I fall into the former camp.)
But the White House should have known that it would wind up trapped with respect to both camps:
"She is qualified."
--"How so?""She served as White House Counsel."
--"Okay, what exactly did she do as White House Counsel?""Sorry, for the sake of future presidents we can't disclose that."
It would be different if Miers had some — any — paper trail or line item on her résumé that suggested sufficient credentials. But instead we've now deteriorated from "You should trust me..." to "You have no choice but to trust me..."
But of course, the Senate does have a choice — to reject her nomination. And while the president may have no choice but to withhold the documents "for the sake of future presidents," he does of course a choice regarding this present nominee.
How soon before the unspeakable is spoken of and the unthinkable is thought about?
More thoughts at SCOTUSblog.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Posted by Kip on
24 October 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
