Skip to main content

View Diary: Miers Confirmation Hearing Will be Pure Gold (321 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Miers and Roberts (4.00)
    have clear conflicts of interest in any impeachment and would have to recuse themselves.  That leaves a liberal/moderate majority in the SCOTUS.

    The most important lesson of Katrina is that there are things that are worse than taxes.

    by RequestedUsername on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:22:01 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  In the event of an impeachment, what role (none)

      do you see the Supreme Court having?


      f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

      by another American on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:26:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  SCOTUS role in impeachement trials (none)
        The chief justice of the supreme court presides over impeachment trials.

        "Waist deep in the Big Muddy And the big fool says to push on." --Pete Seeger

        by DoDi on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:35:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Chief Justice of the United States presides. (none)

          I'm not aware, however, of the Supreme Court having a role.


          f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

          by another American on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 11:16:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  SCOTUS only matters if the pres (none)
            asserts executive privilege BEFORE the articles of impeachment are drafted.

            In this case, Bush could probably claim that the constitution was his private property due to executive privilege and hear only token opposition from 3 dissenters on SCOTUS.

            We're screwed.

            War is hell. Execute Order 66.

            by raymundo on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:01:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Why would Roberts recuse? (4.00)
      ...he didn't before.  And Scalia didn't.  We're not talking honest people here.

      Rubus Eradicandus Est.

      by Randomfactor on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:30:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Scalia was nominated by W? (4.00)
        We'll never defeat the Republicans if they have access to a time machine.

        The most important lesson of Katrina is that there are things that are worse than taxes.

        by RequestedUsername on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:31:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is the MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION (4.00)
        to ask Miers:

        In the event you are called upon to decide a criminal or civil matter against your close colleagues in the Bush Administration in which they are named defendants, not ex officio, will you now pledge to recuse yourself?

        Yes or no?

        Up or down?

      •  Impeach him then (none)
        You guys had better start thinking of ways to remove Supreme Court justices other than twiddling your thumbs and waiting for the Grim Reaper. Failure to recuse in a clear conflict of interest situation would seem good grounds for impeachment. And yes, that goes for Scalia as well.

        Oh, but if you did it, they'd do it as well? They already have.

        But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

        by sagesource on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:44:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Impeachment grounds (none)
          I don't think we can make a case for impeachment on failure to recuse oneself, but perjury in confirmation hearings is another matter.  I think the effort should be to use questions about georgia10's issues to lay perjury traps.

          Now a New Mexican, and much the better for it.

          by Dallasdoc on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 11:16:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  VERY good idea. n/t (none)

            But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

            by sagesource on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 11:38:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  "during good behavior" (none)
            according to the constitution the justices serve for as long as they demonstrate "good behavior."  i would argue that bush v. gore is bad behavior, for instance, so it wouldn't be tough to get the three remaining conspirators out.

            of course, there's no point getting into that until we can control the replacement process.

            your idea of setting up "perjury traps" isn't bad.  too bad our elected dems are far too stupid to do anything like that.

            we'd better decide now if we are going to be fearless men or scared boys.
            — e.d. nixon, montgomery improvement association

            by zeke L on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 11:48:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Is that perjury? (none)
            I don't think so. What's the lie under oath?

            "Will you pledge to do XYZ?"

            "Yes."

            Later...

            "You didn't do XYZ. You lied under oath."

            "No I didn't. I pledged to do XYZ. That was true."

            "But you broke your pledge."

            "Yes, but I didn't lie. I definitely did pledge."

            There's no lie under oath here. Sneakiness under oath, but no lie.

            •  You can't perjure about intent (4.00)
              But you can perjure about past actions.  Georgia's diary suggests questions about her past actions, which are fair game--especially with no judicial record to review.  

              With years of association with Bush and his flying monkeys, there's got to be mountains of shady activity in her past.  Surely there are smart ways to get around confidentiality issues to put her on the record about some very embarrassing stuff, and at least make her confirmation a Pyrrhic victory for Bush.  With luck, we can catch her in perjury, and use it as grounds for impeachment at a future date.

              Now a New Mexican, and much the better for it.

              by Dallasdoc on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 12:26:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  They shoot horses, don't they? (none)
        Traitors - what? Get book contracts, and offshore drilling rights?
    •  Agreed, they should do so (none)
      So the question is would they do so.

      The answer is . . . in the fact of their nominations by this corrupt administration.

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:49:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is failure to recuse impeachable? (none)
      Is failure to recuse oneself when there is a conflict of interest of the appearance of one an impeachable offense?

      Just a question in case Democrats regain control of Congress?

      The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

      by TarheelDem on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:58:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And If They Don't Recuse-- (none)
      who do we appeal the nonrecusal to? Who enforces it?

      Checks and balances are elective.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 11:25:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not talking about impeachment..... (none)
      ...but about the constitutionality of the indictment of a sitting President. Wingnut Supreme Court Justices recuse themselves on only the rarest of occasions, and will not do so when it comes to the President. They will flout the normal rules of ethics.

      Her nomination provides him with personal security. She will no recuse in any matter concerning him and no one but the Chief Justice can make her.

      "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

      by Bensdad on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 12:37:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (55)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (29)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Media (18)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Labor (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • GOP (16)
  • Law (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Racism (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site