(HT: tee bee at Guide to Midwestern Culture)
Two days without commenting on the Miers nomination is just too much. With Jib also falling off the M.A. bandwagon, I guess the Wisconsin chapter of Miers’ Anonymous is now closed.
The Washington Post reports on Senate Judiciary Char Arlen Specter’s appearance on ABC’s “This Week”. While in one breath, he condemns the “stampede to judgement”, on the other, he sure seems to be echoing some of the complaints lodged against her:
Specter said he would press Miers “very hard” on her approach to legal issues such as whether the Roe v. Wade abortion decision is settled law, and on whether she has privately given anyone assurances on how she would vote on the bench. He will even ask to see her law school transcript from Southern Methodist University because “academic standing is relevant,” he said.
Specter and Vermont Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said they intend to follow up on a comment by Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson that, based on conversations with White House adviser Karl Rove, he believes she opposes abortion and would be a good justice.
“This is a lifetime appointment,” Specter said. “If there are backroom assurances and there are backroom deals, and if there is something which bears upon a precondition as to how a nominee is going to vote, I think that’s a matter that ought to be known by the Judiciary Committee and the American people.”
And I suppose asking her whether Roe is settled law isn’t asking for a precondition as to how she’ll vote. </sarcasm> I guess old Scottish Law’s laundry list of questions can be summed up thusly – “Ms. Miers, will you ever rule to the right of where Justice O’Connor ruled?”
Along those lines, I hope that President Bush is regretting jettisoning history by helping old Scottish Law in his 2004 Pennsylvania primary.
Specter is just using the classic rhetorical device of decrying the Miers lynch mob to appear fair, before spouting off Roe gunk like he’s been in a vaccuum for the past four months. Or, with regard to the latter, he’s just your typical senator; doesn’t pay attention to the rabble bringing up silly points about not asking a justice nom to tell you how they’ll vote on something they are likely to vote on.
I thought it was good for a laugh, but I’ll have to see if Jib has bought into the whole “ICC” thing that Jeff G at Protein Wisdom had up last Tuesday. Sounds bad, but it attributes the pro-ICC sentiment of other lawyers to one board member, in this case, Miers.
Like just about everything else surrounding Miers, I can’t fully-assess the ICC statement from Protein Wisdom. That mushroom called Miers’ nomination just isn’t getting any clearer.
(Head in hands) It’ll all be over soon. It’ll all be over soon.