Can You Spell "Harriet Cronyism?"
When George Bush made his latest pick for Supreme Court justice, he made me completely suspicious of him, as usual. His pick is White House council Harriet Miers.
I can think of plenty of reasons off-hand that this pick is nothing more than cronyism.
First, let's consider the legal ramifications. If she becomes a justice, she might run into several cases that she might have to consider to recuse herself. She represented Bush and others in the White House in the last few years and if any of her clients end up with charges against them in the future, she would be personally obligated to recuse herself, but not neccesarily legally obligated. She in effect could sit in judgement of her friends who served in the White House. Supreme Court judges are not legally bound to recusal, it is their own judgement to decide to recuse.
Justice Scalia has already done this for his friend Vice-President Dick Cheney. He presided over the case of the "Enron energy meetings" about whether to release the information from the meeting, after spending time with Cheney on a duck hunting trip.
This White House may end up before the Supreme Court in a number of cases, particularily since it seems the White House has been treading on the thin line of honesty and lawfulness. Take the case of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. A new policy had been adopted in regard to what constitutes torture, yet no one involved in making the new policy has yet been legally linked to Abu Ghraib. At least two White House employees may someday face that music, Donald Rumsfeld or Alberto Gonzalez.
Harriet Miers has been too closely involved in the workings of the White House. At the minimum, she may be prejudiced to ruling in favor of presidential power. Our federal government is a three part balance of power, presidential, congressional, and judicial. The key is balance, keeping the three independent is important. By having Miers be appointed by a good friend Bush, then the influence of the White House over the Supreme Court becomes suspicious.
As a non-partisan (I don't trust either party) I can only wonder what might happen if Bush himself ends up before the Supreme Court, again. We shouldn't forget that Bush won his 2000 election after a visit to the Supreme Court, winning in a 5-4 vote. And we know that Cheney and Scalia are friends, buddies of Bush.
The new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts also came from his past experience in the White House through a George Bush nomination. Bush keeps saying he wants to nominate people he knows. With my raised eyebrows I ask, "Why in all this wide land called America can't "Team Bush" find an independent judge not friendly to either political party?" Scalia, Roberts, Miers, this Supreme Court is shaping up into a pro-Bush friends and family reunion.
True Kool-Aid drinking Bush supporters (I can say Kool-Aid as I would never place absolute faith in ANY political party or politician) would never agree with me, because they are somehow blinded to this closeknitness of the upper ranks of the Republicans. They are simply a clan of rich, self serving, cronyists, under-the-table dealing, hypocrites. If this was a Democratic Party White House acting like this, I would as well be upset (I hate Kool-Aid).
And this clan is helping to protect itself in the future by stacking the Supreme Court with friends that might come to decide NOT to recuse themselves if any of the Bush Clan comes before the court. Scalia already proved he would refuse to recuse on the Dick Cheney case, so why shouldn't I expect the two new judges to choose not to recuse in any future cases? (Note: If you move the ess, "recuse" becomes "rescue," don't know if that means anything.)
So, I'm saying that the Senate needs to thumbs down Bush's new SC nomination Harriet Miers because of that closeknitness. I want a judge who is independent from the White House and Congress. Someone who has been doing some good judging over the course of a number of years, not a lawyer that defends the White House. I don't want a judge that may refuse to recuse thus rescuing their friend in legal trouble. (I guess recuse/rescue did mean something.) Vote NO to cronyism, Miers needs to be rejected (or rescinded by Bush himself) and an independent judge nominated.
I can think of plenty of reasons off-hand that this pick is nothing more than cronyism.
First, let's consider the legal ramifications. If she becomes a justice, she might run into several cases that she might have to consider to recuse herself. She represented Bush and others in the White House in the last few years and if any of her clients end up with charges against them in the future, she would be personally obligated to recuse herself, but not neccesarily legally obligated. She in effect could sit in judgement of her friends who served in the White House. Supreme Court judges are not legally bound to recusal, it is their own judgement to decide to recuse.
Justice Scalia has already done this for his friend Vice-President Dick Cheney. He presided over the case of the "Enron energy meetings" about whether to release the information from the meeting, after spending time with Cheney on a duck hunting trip.
This White House may end up before the Supreme Court in a number of cases, particularily since it seems the White House has been treading on the thin line of honesty and lawfulness. Take the case of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. A new policy had been adopted in regard to what constitutes torture, yet no one involved in making the new policy has yet been legally linked to Abu Ghraib. At least two White House employees may someday face that music, Donald Rumsfeld or Alberto Gonzalez.
Harriet Miers has been too closely involved in the workings of the White House. At the minimum, she may be prejudiced to ruling in favor of presidential power. Our federal government is a three part balance of power, presidential, congressional, and judicial. The key is balance, keeping the three independent is important. By having Miers be appointed by a good friend Bush, then the influence of the White House over the Supreme Court becomes suspicious.
As a non-partisan (I don't trust either party) I can only wonder what might happen if Bush himself ends up before the Supreme Court, again. We shouldn't forget that Bush won his 2000 election after a visit to the Supreme Court, winning in a 5-4 vote. And we know that Cheney and Scalia are friends, buddies of Bush.
The new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts also came from his past experience in the White House through a George Bush nomination. Bush keeps saying he wants to nominate people he knows. With my raised eyebrows I ask, "Why in all this wide land called America can't "Team Bush" find an independent judge not friendly to either political party?" Scalia, Roberts, Miers, this Supreme Court is shaping up into a pro-Bush friends and family reunion.
True Kool-Aid drinking Bush supporters (I can say Kool-Aid as I would never place absolute faith in ANY political party or politician) would never agree with me, because they are somehow blinded to this closeknitness of the upper ranks of the Republicans. They are simply a clan of rich, self serving, cronyists, under-the-table dealing, hypocrites. If this was a Democratic Party White House acting like this, I would as well be upset (I hate Kool-Aid).
And this clan is helping to protect itself in the future by stacking the Supreme Court with friends that might come to decide NOT to recuse themselves if any of the Bush Clan comes before the court. Scalia already proved he would refuse to recuse on the Dick Cheney case, so why shouldn't I expect the two new judges to choose not to recuse in any future cases? (Note: If you move the ess, "recuse" becomes "rescue," don't know if that means anything.)
So, I'm saying that the Senate needs to thumbs down Bush's new SC nomination Harriet Miers because of that closeknitness. I want a judge who is independent from the White House and Congress. Someone who has been doing some good judging over the course of a number of years, not a lawyer that defends the White House. I don't want a judge that may refuse to recuse thus rescuing their friend in legal trouble. (I guess recuse/rescue did mean something.) Vote NO to cronyism, Miers needs to be rejected (or rescinded by Bush himself) and an independent judge nominated.
posted by jon at 12:35 PM
1 Comments:
What a mess.
I do hope some of Miers' former clients get held accountable someday; and I hope Miers isn't there to conveniently excuse her recuse.
Post a Comment
<< Home