Thursday, October 06, 2005

Miers Ju Jitsu

Justin Frank on the real reason for the Miers nomination:

This is not about Roe v. Wade; this is not about favors to big business through eliminating business accountability; it is not about gay marriage. The only thing this appointment could be about is self-protection from impeachable offenses. How great to have your own lawyer sitting on the bench of the highest court in the land?
Completely true. But as with that fine art of self-defense, our opponent's offense exposes him, and thus creates an opportunity.

Think about what her cronyism really means. Miers gained Shrub's trust by virtue of her presence (and perhaps complicity) in a number of embarassing, immoral and maybe illegal events in the career of our Dear Leader. There is the National Guard fix. There's the picture of her handing him a memo that just might be the "bin Laden determined to attack" memo. There must be many more such episodes.

Bush wants her on the Court to protect him, but the road to the Supreme Court goes through the Senate Judicary Committee, which means that Democratic Seantors will have the unique opportunity to question a senior Administration official, under oath, on national television. The Dems on the Committee need to take advantage of that singular opportunity.

If the President is going to treat Miers' experience as Bush's fixer as her primary job qualification, then her actions, and the moral character demonstrated in that role, are relevant. Which means that probing questions in these areas are appropriate and, indeed, necessary.

So, Senator Kennedy, ask her if she handed Bush the famous bin Laden memo, and what they discussed. Senator Feinstein, ask her about what she found when she investigated Bush's National Guard records. Senators Biden, Durbin, et al -- you get the idea.

She likely won't answer. But getting the questions out there on live TV is a good in and of itself. And if she refuses to answer because of attorney-client privilege, Senators, demand that Bush waive that privilege. It simply should not be acceptable to appoint someone to the highest court in the land solely on the basis of her work in a single role, and refuse to allow the country to learn about how she performed in it. You want to preserve the privilege, George? No problem -- withdraw the nomination.


Post a Comment

<< Home

see web stats