Today's New York Times reveals more damning information about "Judge" Harriet Miers. The Times reports that Miers, in her responses to the Senate's written questions, has shown a complete lack of engagement in the judicial confirmation process. I suggest that Bush told her that she would be easily confirmed, that the Democrats would be impressed with her moderate credentials, and that the Republicans would march in lockstep behind their President as always.
Miers was temporarily suspended from practicing law because of her failure to pay her dues. Normally, I would let such a thing go. But the fact that she gives one-paragraph and one-word answers to the Judiciary Commitee's questions shows an ongoing lack of engagement in the process and a lack of knowledge about case law and legal philosophy.
As a result of Miers' lack of engagement with the nomination process, The Times wrote an editorial leaning against her confirmation.
This issue is all about whether we trust the President to tell us who is the most qualified person in the land to head up the SCOTUS. Bush, for instance, said that the reason she was so qualified was because he "knew her heart." He also cited her church membership, in violation of the Constitutional prohibition against religious tests for public office. But the documented record of lies and deceit by the Bush administration shows that Bush has failed to earn that trust. And Harriett Miers has failed to meet the burden of proof in demonstrating that she is a qualified judge.
At the college I am at, we do not give grades as such. Instead, we are required to turn in written notes every quarter to show our professors that we are actively engaged in the process of getting a degree. But if anybody could ever flunk out of our school, Miers would be one such person. In the words of the Times editorial, "Mires has yet to demonstrate that she can even satisfactorily fill out a questionnaire."
Miers' lack of engagement suggests something else: Since the White House refuses to provide any relevant information about her, I suggest Bush is trying to hide something about her, given the fact that he has kept all the transcripts about her secret. If she is such a qualified person, then what does Bush have to hide by revealing what she has to say?
The combination of Bush's concealment of potentially damaging information and Miers' lack of engagement in the process is a major embarassment. This is the first time ever that a judge has had to rewrite her answers to the questions submitted to her.
And Miers and her defenders are making a whole round of excuses to cover up for her behavior. The first excuse she makes is that the volume of her files is so large, she didn't have time to go through them all. Her second excuse is to blame her law firm for not paying her dues for her on time. If I were an employer, and I were to have an employee who made one excuse after another for not carrying out simple tasks, I would fire them.
In addition, there are certain questions that if I did not get satisfactory answers to, I would fire that employee as well. Among the questions Miers gave one-word answers to:
--A request for information detailing all the communications the Bush administration had with people about how she would rule on certain cases;
--A request to determine such information if she did not know it;
--A detailed explaination and overview of the Constitutional issues she handled as a White House lawyer;
--Questions about potential conflicts of interest;
--How her experience as a White House lawyer shaped her Constitutional law philosophy;
--When she would recuse herself from decisions or participation;
--Documentation, letters, and cancelled checks regarding her suspension as a lawyer in DC;
--Information on all matters in which she litigated;
--Information on any questionnaires she filled out when she was a candidate for the Dallas City Council.
In the words of the Times, her answers were "a few terse lines that reveal close to nothing" and "windy obfuscation" which "hardly dazzled people with her legal mind" which amout to a "refusal to give her views on the most basic points of law."
Miers' non-response has spawned an unlikely alliance between right-wingers, who want a nominee who will overturn Roe, and the Democrats, who want a nominee who will protect the right to choose. The reason this alliance has spawned is because not answering the most basic questions on matters of law ultimately ends up pleasing nobody.