Questions
One thing I keep hearing about Harriet Miers is that we know nothing about her judicial philosophy. I also keep hearing that we can’t ask her about cases that might come up before the Supreme Court in the future.
But we have to find out more about her before she is confirmed, don’t we? Can’t we ask her what she thinks about certain issues? And can’t we ask her how she feels about cases that have been decided by the Court in the past?
There are questions she can be asked and there are answers she can give. If she doesn’t respond, well the Senate does not have to confirm.
But we have to find out more about her before she is confirmed, don’t we? Can’t we ask her what she thinks about certain issues? And can’t we ask her how she feels about cases that have been decided by the Court in the past?
There are questions she can be asked and there are answers she can give. If she doesn’t respond, well the Senate does not have to confirm.
posted by Ed Bremson, MFA @ 12:46 PM
2 Comments:
At 6:57 AM,
Palema said…
I think the real problem with this nominee is not what we do not know, but what we do know: she is, first and foremost, a Bush loyalist. So if there were a case involving the powers of the president, whose side would she come down on?
Let's say, for instance, that Bush decided to run for a third term -- wouldn't she find the term limit law unconstitutional?
I suspect she would be obliged to recuse herself only in a matter involving him personally
At 8:54 AM,
Ed Bremson, MFA said…
Well, exactly. I too am troubled more by what I know about her than what I do not know. In fact, in some ways, the only thing I need to know is that Bush likes her a lot, and that they're buddies going back a long time. Since I am not happy with him, I assume I will not be happy with her. I hope I'm wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home