Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site