Is the fix in, or wd she recuse herself in cases involving the Bush Admin?

[Stephanie]

Isn't this a mistake on Bush's part? If the Abu Ghraib photos went to the SC, say, wouldn't she be obligated to recuse herself? And, who enforces that? Or is this nomination a direct response, a big Bush FU, to Fitz? Is the FIX in?

______________________________



File photo shows (L-R) White House political advisor Karl Rove, Communications director Dan Bartlett, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Harriet Miers and Vice President Dick Cheney in the Rose Garden of the White House, July 1 2005. President Bush will name White House counsel Harriet Miers as his candidate to fill the next Supreme Court vacancy, a Bush administration official said. REUTERS/Jason Reed

http: //news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/051003/ids_photos_ts/r1254724911.jpg

[clydefrand]

1. ROBERTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tesla]

3. Maybe he has a conscious!!!!

Only a true NEOCON can look at those photos and eat dinner at the same time!!

[0007]

5. Egads!

[maine_raptor]

2. No

She can just stand there and just say "You're not going to make me recuse myself".

Once she's on the Court, she's on.

[still_one]

4. no, supreme court justices DO NOT have to recuse themselves

it is purely a volunteer move


dems better do their job, and NOT approve anyone until fitzgerald comes out with his indictments

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. Remember that Scalia did not recuse himself from hearing his duck

hunting buddy's case.

Edited to add...

I am aware that Scalia had nothing to do with the energy task force and that Miers had a high probabilty of giving some feedback on Bushco's torture stance, but if the WH won't release the papers, who's to prove that?

[Stephanie]

8. that's right - the energy panel case

But in this case, as WH counsel, she is presumably privy to some confidential info. Probably she consulted on Plame, for example. So it seems pretty clear cut that she'd have to bow out.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. We, being moral human beings believe she would have to bow out,

but we are not dealing with a very moral lot here, are we?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. Scalia did not recuse himself from Gore/Bush even though his

son was working for the Bush Cmpaign. I think Clarence Thomas's wife was also doing work for W's campaign and he also did not recuse.

[Benhurst]

10. Exactly. As if any of these stooges would ever recuse themselves.

They probably don't even know the meaning of the word.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. You are 100% right! nt

[Stephanie]

13. But those are second-hand links, not direct

If she were directly involved in discussions inside the WH regarding Plame or Abu Ghraib then I think she would be obligated to step aside.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. If she recuses herself, does that leave the REPUKE majority to rule

on the Bush cases? This could be "by design", eh? This could be why she was nominated. She was WH counsel, she couldn't possibly rule on the Abu Ghraib and Plame cases, now could she?

[Stephanie]

14. that's a good point

If she recuses herself it's 4-4 tho, isn't it?

[annabanana]

15. no "obligation" to recuse themselves...

They have in the past to avoid the appearance of bias..

With this shameless crew, under no obligation to recuse themselves... why bother?