You Can't Make This Stuff Up ... (Harriet Miers Edition)

[JABBS]

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), and ranking minority member Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), sent a return letter to Supreme Court Nominee Harriet Miers on Oct. 19 asking that she resubmit parts of her judicial questionnaire -- the first time many senators and aides could recall the committee sending a questionnaire back to a nominee.

Various members found her answers to the first questionnaire to be "inadequate," "insufficient" and "insulting."

As one example of Miers's questionable answers, she referred to the "proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause" as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.

"<strong>There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause</strong>," said Cass Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.

Leahy remarked, "If the questions are not answered or their answer is incomplete, as they have been, then it's going to be a long hearing indeed."

The most recent setback led Specter to opine, "There's been more controversy before this nominee has uttered a formal word than I have ever heard."

-- Center for American Progress, Oct. 20

***

This item first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.

[jayctravis]

1. Apparently Jon Stewart said there was a detailed question;

something like "describe in detail the <something something>..." and her written answer was, "No."

He said they weren't making that one up.

[niallmac]

3. No? Did she really answer "No?"

[jayctravis]

6. That's what he said!

[lithiumbomb]

8. she did not answer 'no'

I did find the full questionnaire, she did not simply answer 'no' to a question to mean 'no i will not answer.' She did answer 'No' to a couple of questions, but the answer was in response to a "yes or no, if yes please describe" type of question.

http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/HEM%20Questionnaire%20final.pdf

[niallmac]

9. Well thank you. I was thinking this is beyond chutzpah/t

[Gloria]

2. And after all this, they will probably confirm her.....

to be stuck with a crony like this just as the good ship Bushco is taking on water.....to think, this loser and Roberts could take away so many rights and rule so badly on so many things, long after Bush is gone.

It is so aggravating. You have to wonder...what if the frigging Democrats had stood up and fought from the start, instead of caving in on everything Bushco offered?? You know, a chorus of unified voices provides safety....if you keep letting crap go by, you are just feeding the beast you are so afraid of....

[Dogmudgeon]

4. What if the Democrats had fought from the start?

(That's a paraphrase, because of the length of the quote).

Well, some of them, many of them, DID stand up and fight from the start. Even the frigging Democrats.

What were we doing? Bitching about how the other Democrats weren't fighting for us to our satisfaction.

The lesson is simple: We need to support the fightin' Democrats a lot more intensely -- and not give a damn about the conciliators.

--p!

[Gloria]

10. Unfortunately, the conciliators have been the leaders!

Daschle, to start with.....really paved the way. Lieberman. etc.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. Alas, our own response was pretty weak, too

I've ranted about this many times, so I might as well rant about it some more: We're far too concerned about screaming "Treason!" at the Joe Liebermans of the party, especially when Joe could be doing OUR business, not that of the Insurance Industry, the Military-Industrial Complex, and the state of Israel. So it sucks -- I agree. I had many disagreements with Mr. Daschle, but he did a lot of good in his time, as well. They could have very effective roles to play in advancing OUR cause, even out of power as Daschle is, but we have to be the ones holding the proverbial leash. And we're not doing it, nor can we do it simply by complaining.

For instance, unions are falling on hard times and have about as much clout as a comatose, armless man. Daschle is now free to do what he does best, which is to rep for the union movement. (The last time I checked, anyway.)

Hell, there have been Republicans who have done some progressive things, too. Politicians are for the using.

But screaming bloody murder about the torchbearers of the Democratic Party is just plain counterproductive. They don't change because of it, and we end up wasting our time. When undecided voters hear Hillary being called a "war monger" -- while the Republican war mongers attract nary a peep of criticism -- it breeds the kind of cynicicm that gets Democrats defeated at the polls and keeps Republicans on the throne of a nation that isn't supposed to countenance kings, princes, or so much as an hereditary barony. There has to be a better way to "keep them in line" than savaging our own movement.

And it's a lot less power-damping when the fight is conducted during primary season, when Republicans are usually also laying into each other. But that's politics, and it should be their hobby, not our life.

Mainly, we need to assume that WE are The Party, and to hell with the elected officials, most of whom are involved in no-win politics anyway. That's basically what the Right did, and it worked. They got themselves elected to local and minor positions, cranked out propaganda by the long ton, and by 1980, the word "liberal" was being used like the word "Jew" in 1930s Germany.

It won't help to "take back the streets" or "speak truth to power" if the street commission is against us and the noise ordinances are written by the powerful. What is required is a certain kind of cultivated, feigned disinterest in the politicians -- while keeping track of their every move. "That's nice, Joe. Now go away and leave us to inflict some well-earned pain on your friends in the Insurance biz. And remember us the next time you're tempted to give them a freebie, because our party loyalty goes only so far."

It works in dating, and it should work in politics.

The points you make are good, and the fires must be kept stoked. But the single flaw in the argument is the killer -- that with the proper representation, we will win back the political process. I disagree. We'll win it back by establishing ourselves as The Power among the people. The politicians will then hasten to listen to US. Then we'll have representation, as well as quick response time to mail, e-mail, and phone calls, and strong, honest, Progressive voting in Washington.

Imagine Liberals and Progressives dominating nearly all of the school boards, zoning boards, and other contact-level legal offices in the country? It would cut the Radical Right off at the ankles. The Republicans would be holding on for dear life, and the "Joementum" would consist of the Democratic politicians coming to us for help, not the other way around.

This isn't to say we should ignore what's happening "at the top". But right now, we're ignoring what's happening at the bottom, and heaping as much abuse on Democrats as Republicans do. That's not a winning strategy.

In order to win, we will have to work twice as hard, be twice as clever, and swallow twice as much of our pride just to get half as far. But consider who we're up against -- a bunch of lazy, ignorant, egotistical greedheads. Their future is pain and loss. Our future is success and justice. Sending Joe Lieberman and the other DLC fuddies out to pasture can wait.

Here's to the future -- OUR future! Remember to toss a crumb to Joe and Tom, and tell them not to get the floor dirty again.

--p!

[xray s]

5. Cook this pig on low heat

keep it spinning in the spit for a long long while.

[Neil Lisst]

7. saw it on The Daily Show ...

She did in fact answer "NO" to a question that began "describe ...."

She looks like she was shot at and missed, shit at and hit.

^^It's an old Texas saying.


the face of evil, today:
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst

[walldude]

11. Maybe it was this question:

b. Has anyone involved in the process of selecting you as a judicial nominee (including, but not limited to anyone in the Executive Office of the President, the Justice Department, or the Senate and its staff) ever discussed with you any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning your position on such case, issue, or question? If so, please explain fully. Please identify each communication you had prior to the announcement of your nomination with anyone in the Executive Office of the President, the Justice Department or the Senate or its staff referring or relating to your views on any case, issue or subject that could come before the Supreme Court of the United States, state who was present or participated in such communication, and describe briefly what transpired.
No.

As the President's legal counsel I would assume she has discussed her position on things with him.