Miers, the demise
Oct. 27th, 2005 07:47 amTo, 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 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.
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
![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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.