Does Bush Want Miers On the SCOTUS to Buttress Against IMPEACHMENT?

[rbajai]

<snip>
At this moment, only two groups of people truly know the outcome of investigations into the current White House scandals: the investigators - and the guilty parties in the West Wing. While we are all speculating about what special prosecutors may or may not do, Team Bush has a precise forecast of the firestorm that awaits them, and they have been planning for this disaster for months...So Bush gets a spy on the court. For her part, Miers gets a place in history beyond her wildest dreams. And Senate Democrats get a one-to-one replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.


Link to full article can be found at http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/02/21?p=1124

[William769]

1. SCOTUS has nothing to do with impeachment

With the exception of the chief justice sitting as the judge.

[Lancer]

4. Exactly.

SCOTUS: We don't evict the president, we just appoint him.

[rbajai]

6. Did you see this part of the article though?

<snip>
And consider the linchpin role the Supreme Court has played in the last two great presidential scandals:

In Watergate, the Supreme Court upheld a subpoena against President Nixon, forcing him to release his secret tape recordings. He resigned about two weeks later, on August 9, 1974.

During the Clinton wars, it was the Supreme Court ruling in Clinton v. Jones that allowed the Jones sexual harassment suit to proceed against President Clinton. In his deposition in the suit, the President was drawn into the perjury trap about his affair with Monica Lewinksy that led to his impeachment.

[Arkansas Granny]

8. You may be onto something. Could this have any bearing on the

false information used in the run up to the war in Iraq?

[iconoclastNYC]

11. ding ding ding ding ding! n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

10. Oh bullshit.

Look at the Clinton impeachment and tell me that SCOTUS didn't have a role in this. It took a couple judgments against Clinton to get impeachment going.

[William769]

13. Thats bullshit itself

They were going to inpeach Clinton no matter what.

[iconoclastNYC]

17. You are ignorant of history.

It took a Supreme Court decision to get Clinton under oath in Paula Jone's civil suit. That's the point of this whole thread. The SCOTUS will be favorable for the Bush junta from now on with two more Bush appointees.

[William769]

18. Speaking of ignorance

They did not need SCOTUS to impeach Clinton. They would have done it anyway.

[iconoclastNYC]

19. On what grounds?

You are really married to your oppinion

[William769]

20. Ditto

[DefenseLawyer]

24. No question the rulings on suing

a sitting president and the lack of attorney client privilege for white house counsel aided the witch hunt, but I don't see how the Supreme Court directly impacted the impeachment itself. I have seen several people put forth this idea regarding the Miers nomination, but no one has explained to me how a single vote on the supreme court would provide any protection from impeachment, since the supreme court has nothing to do with the process.

[garybeck]

14. however

if it evolves from an impeachment hearing into a question of constitutionality, which is a very real possibility, then SCOTUS would definitely be involved.

also, it is not just one issue. SCOTUS will be involved in other issues, perhaps future election debacles... She's being put there to protect them one way or another, for sure. Certainly not because she's a good judge.

[Walt Starr]

2. The CJ will preside over the Senate for the trial

but that's it.

Meiers would have absolutely nothing to do with impeachment proceedings.

[Swede Atlanta]

3. Not sure Miers helps ShrubCo on possible Impeachment

Impeachment cases are brought and prosecuted by the House but the Senate serves as the finder of fact and jury with the Chief Justice of the U.S. sitting as Judge. I'm not sure how much Miers bolsters the Executive Branch against impeachments. Clearly, however, if a question about extra-impeachment action was every raised against senior staff, the Supreme Court could become involved as the court of last resort on appeals.

[H2O Man]

16. Right.

The only possibility I can think of where the Supreme Court could play any role would be if the House demanded specific documentation, and the White House refused. The federal courts could then become involved. There was an example of this in the Nixon years, of course. So while the court isn't going to play a direct role, there is a possibility of a significant, indirect role.

[deminks]

5. I believe this with all of my being.

Smirky did not get to be where he is without a little help from his friends. He needs a little help from them now to retain his empire. Here is an article I found over the weekend:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5074345&mesg_id=5074345

Miers likely chosen for her support of expanded presidential powers

PHILADELPHIA - (KRT) - A lot of Americans are still wondering why President Bush picked Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme Court. It's the prime topic of discussion among the angry conservatives who have been pounding Miers like a pinata for two weeks.

But the Miers nomination isn't about abortion at all. It's about putting somebody on the court who will protect the legacy Bush cares about most: the expansion of presidential power during the war on terrorism.

And who best to rule in favor of those expanded powers - the authority to detain "enemy combatants" indefinitely without trial; to prosecute them in Bush-created military tribunals and to limit their right of appeal; to quiz them under flexible rules of interrogation - than a jurist who had been legal counsel and staff aide to the president who sought those powers?

The administration's priorities were on full display last Tuesday, in a speech by White House chief of staff Andrew Card. While lauding Miers ("a pretty phenomenal woman") to a conservative gathering, he never mentioned abortion, gay marriage, church-state relations, or any other hot-button issue. All he mentioned was the importance of preserving presidential prerogatives.

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/nation/12918254.htm

[rbajai]

9. That too...

and what you are saying goes right along with *'s attempts to repeal Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Acts.

Hmmm...scary stuff indeed.

In five years, will we know our country? I hope so.

[library_max]

7. Really hate to spoil a happy fantasy,

but impeachment is a purely political process. The shameful Clinton impeachment proved that. It matters not one tiny bit what the President has or hasn't done that violates the law or abuses his authority. The one and only thing that matters is whether Congress can must a simple majority in the House to impeach and a two-thirds majority in the Senate to convict.

Now remember which party controls both the House and the Senate and forget about impeaching Bush.

[iconoclastNYC]

12. And we know the SCOTUS is completely non-political right?

I mean the party line vote on Bush V. Gore puts any fears of a partisan court behind us, right?

[library_max]

25. Not my point.

Bush v. Gore was the most political decision of all time, by the way. But my point was that impeachment is something Congress does, for political reasons. The makeup of the Supreme Court has nothing to do with it. If Congress was inclined to impeach Bush, it's true that a partial Supreme Court might do something to impede them. But they aren't going to impeach Bush, ever. They're Republicans too.

[Skidmore]

15. Can't you just see the CheneyBorg movin' in close to the

psychotic Little Boots and muttering through the sneer, "You know, George, that move to draft me for VP worked pretty good. Now were in for a trip up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle soon. How about doing a similar move with the SC nomination. Let's draft Harriet. You do this and they'll be certain of your brilliance and political savvy. Make sure you hand her a paddle during the installation ceremony."

[verse18]

21. I wonder if she would recuse herself

for conflict of interest.

[electron_blue]

28. oh puleez

You're not serious, right?

[Orsino]

22. Only very obliquely.

Any convictions will be appealed all the way up the chain, if only to play for time, and ensuring that a couple of cronies are in place on SCOTUS makes perfect sense.

They want allies at all levels of the judicial branch.

[knitter4democracy]

23. Yup.

He wants cronies everywhere to protect his own ass.

[mopinko]

26. i think impeachment is the least of their worries

getting their puppet kicked out of the white house does nothing to get at the actual criminals in this cabal. that is what they are worried about. if there is any justice left in this country, impeachment will be just the start.

[electron_blue]

27. Mainly Roberts

I pointed this out a few months ago with the nomination of Roberts for chief justice. I'm sure this is one of the reasons Bush nominated him, rather than take his chances with someone already on the court. Putting Miers on, as a personal friend & confidante, couldn't hurt, although I don't see an obvious connection to her with possible impeachment proceedings.

[MurrayDelph]

29. I thought it was in advance

of trying to re-coup the monies received by Halliburton and the
other oil companies.