Miers, the demise
Oct. 27th, 2005 07:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumTo, I suspect, no one's great surprise Harriet Miers is no longer a candidate for the Supreme Court.
Me, I was certain the nomination was dead (not just doomed) when Arlen Specter (Sen-R, Penn) sent his list of questions to her, which addressed
-Limits on how long terrorism detainees may be held.
-Constitutional factors in judging presidential power to detain aliens outside U.S. borders.
-Ways you judge the majority and dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court's 2004 rulings on the rights of war on terrorism captives.
-Legal factors to be weighed in deciding whether terrorism captives are to be held as "enemy combatants" and whether they have legal rights.
-Constitutional factors in judging whether Congress gave the President too much power in approving war in Iraq.
-The constitutional nature of the Korean conflict, as a war that Congress did not declare.
-Similarly, the constitutional nature of the Vietnam conflict.
(and thanks toiocaste for having this handy summa of them)
All of those questions touch on the one thing near and dear to this White House, the president's power, and privilege.
Bertie, "It's ok to beat 'em if the President says so" Gonzales wrote a memo, which, in effect, claimed the President had the powers of a Roman tribune: The magistracy of tribune of the people (tribunus plebis) was established in 494 BC, about fifteen years after the foundation of the Roman Republic in 509. The plebeians of Rome seceded as a group until the patricians agreed to the establishment of an office that would have sacrosanctity (sacrosanctitas), the right to be legally protected from any physical harm -- and the right of help (ius auxiliandi), the right to rescue any plebeian from the hands of a patrician magistrate. Later, the tribunes acquired a far more formidable power, the right of intercession (ius intercessio), to veto any act or proposal of any magistrate, including another tribune of the people ("veto" is Latin for "I forbid"). As the chief representative of the Roman populus, the Tribune's house was required to be open to all at all times, day or night.
The tribune also had the power to exercise capital punishment against any person who interfered in the performance of his duties (the favourite threat of the tribune was therefore to have someone thrown from the Tarpeian Rock). The tribune's sacrosanctity was enforced by a solemn pledge of the plebeians to kill any person who harmed a tribune during his term of office.
(check the Wikipedia entry for more complete details)
I said when Roberts was nominated that the most frightening aspect of his career wasn't his views on privacy, but his regular (and habitual, looking at the jobs he held; and those he didn't) deference, and defence, of executive power. Which was reflected in his rulings from the DC Court of Appeals, most notably the case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld where he was part of the panel which said we can hold "enemy combatant" as non-POWs and try them in military courts.
Meirs looked to be more of the same (and a cynic might say she was chosen for just that reason).
So, when Specter threatened to shine light into those dark corners (as well as the threat of having demands for papers, yet again; which this White House, from it's earliest days has been loathe to release, even in light of the Supreme Court decisions in Clinton v. Jones which said the Executive has very little privilege when he uses counsel on the public payrol) well, I knew she was going to be scuttled.
Me, I was certain the nomination was dead (not just doomed) when Arlen Specter (Sen-R, Penn) sent his list of questions to her, which addressed
-Limits on how long terrorism detainees may be held.
-Constitutional factors in judging presidential power to detain aliens outside U.S. borders.
-Ways you judge the majority and dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court's 2004 rulings on the rights of war on terrorism captives.
-Legal factors to be weighed in deciding whether terrorism captives are to be held as "enemy combatants" and whether they have legal rights.
-Constitutional factors in judging whether Congress gave the President too much power in approving war in Iraq.
-The constitutional nature of the Korean conflict, as a war that Congress did not declare.
-Similarly, the constitutional nature of the Vietnam conflict.
(and thanks to
iocaste for having this handy summa of them)All of those questions touch on the one thing near and dear to this White House, the president's power, and privilege.
Bertie, "It's ok to beat 'em if the President says so" Gonzales wrote a memo, which, in effect, claimed the President had the powers of a Roman tribune: The magistracy of tribune of the people (tribunus plebis) was established in 494 BC, about fifteen years after the foundation of the Roman Republic in 509. The plebeians of Rome seceded as a group until the patricians agreed to the establishment of an office that would have sacrosanctity (sacrosanctitas), the right to be legally protected from any physical harm -- and the right of help (ius auxiliandi), the right to rescue any plebeian from the hands of a patrician magistrate. Later, the tribunes acquired a far more formidable power, the right of intercession (ius intercessio), to veto any act or proposal of any magistrate, including another tribune of the people ("veto" is Latin for "I forbid"). As the chief representative of the Roman populus, the Tribune's house was required to be open to all at all times, day or night.
The tribune also had the power to exercise capital punishment against any person who interfered in the performance of his duties (the favourite threat of the tribune was therefore to have someone thrown from the Tarpeian Rock). The tribune's sacrosanctity was enforced by a solemn pledge of the plebeians to kill any person who harmed a tribune during his term of office.
(check the Wikipedia entry for more complete details)
I said when Roberts was nominated that the most frightening aspect of his career wasn't his views on privacy, but his regular (and habitual, looking at the jobs he held; and those he didn't) deference, and defence, of executive power. Which was reflected in his rulings from the DC Court of Appeals, most notably the case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld where he was part of the panel which said we can hold "enemy combatant" as non-POWs and try them in military courts.
Meirs looked to be more of the same (and a cynic might say she was chosen for just that reason).
So, when Specter threatened to shine light into those dark corners (as well as the threat of having demands for papers, yet again; which this White House, from it's earliest days has been loathe to release, even in light of the Supreme Court decisions in Clinton v. Jones which said the Executive has very little privilege when he uses counsel on the public payrol) well, I knew she was going to be scuttled.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-27 05:15 pm (UTC)I agree, though, that Bush is clearly trying to fit people who'll defer the judiciary branch to the executive (and *only* the executive) branch, and more specificaly, to him, and not anyone following him.
This fits in with the neo-con practices once they've got power: use it ruthlessly to gain more power, destroy thier enemies, and make sure that they're the only ones who've got access to that power.
It's very similar to what I've seen in the corporate world. The point of the game is to win the game, and the rules are written by people who win the game.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-27 06:20 pm (UTC)1: he was qualified.
2: no one looked at his record on the executive, at least no one who got to vote; they were all looking at the pieces, not the game (e.g. Roe v Wade, not rights to privacy. Judicial Philosophy, not separation/scope of powers.
3: Bush wasn't beaten from pillar to post by pending indictments, Katrina, Frist being investigated, DeLay being indicted.
4: Miers is inept. She isn't, for all Bush may like her, the sort of intellect which can inspire people whom she's not been playing up to for years.
5: the base the public doubts (where Roberts had not much... and what there was [like mine] could be written off as partisan divide) give the senators cover to abuse him (the Sen from Kansas discussing the Senate's need to carefull weigh its role of "advise and consent was particularly galling this a.m).
6: The question. So long as the Gang of Fourteen could be convinced Roberts wasn't a foaming at the mouth freak, The White House could blow off almost any attempts to hold his work up to the light. That's not the case now, Having senators say they'd been insulted by her answers, and then the pointed statement of investigative line was enough to make the White House decide this wasn't worth fighting, even if they won in the end, because it would make people wonder just what it was they are actually trying to put on the court.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-10-27 05:35 pm (UTC)Fortunately for us, and for the world, he's no Lucius Cornelius Sulla.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-27 06:25 pm (UTC)All told I think the goal is to recreate the later combined Tribunary Consul.
At which point I'll probably revolt.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-10-27 06:47 pm (UTC)Yeah, I'd have to consider the Constitution effectively dead at that point.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-27 06:08 pm (UTC)That's a damn fine list. Did Roberts get that list? Will the next candidate? They should.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-27 06:23 pm (UTC)Roberts got questions about procedural ideas, and oblique attempts to see how he would rule on Roe v Wade were it argued today.
The more substantive questions, regarding things like presidential powers, and rights to privacy, substantive due process and governmental takings, were ignored.
TK