her plus is a minus

Byline: | Category: Uncategorized | Posted at: Friday, 7 October 2005

Charles Krauthammer brings up a great point about Harriet Miers that I had not considered:

This, say her advocates: We are now at war, and therefore the great issue of our time is the powers of the president, under Article II, to wage war. For four years Miers has been immersed in war-and-peace decisions and therefore will have a deep familiarity with the tough constitutional issues regarding detention, prisoner treatment and war powers.

Perhaps. We have no idea what her role in these decisions was. But to the extent that there was any role, it becomes a liability. For years — crucial years in the war on terrorism — she will have to recuse herself from judging the constitutionality of these decisions because she will have been a party to having made them in the first place. The Supreme Court will be left with an absent chair on precisely the laws-of-war issues to which she is supposed to bring so much.

(emphasis added)

Share this post:

3 Responses to “her plus is a minus”

  1. John H Says:

    These are excellent points. Glad to read something from a slightly different perspective than all the other drum-beating on this issue.

  2. Terry Says:

    Just what exactly are the rules for recusal?

    I haven’t seen Darth Vader Ginsburg recusing herself from cases involving the ACLU or women’s issues, etc.

    Does anyone know what the specific rules are? Krauthammer doesn’t go beyond generalities here. Does it apply to your past or just counsel to a President? Just curious.

  3. persimmon Says:

    She’ll recuse herself just like Rehnquist recused himself from Gore v. Bush because his daughter was up for a position in Bush’s DOJ, and just like Scalia recused himself from Gore v. Bush because his son was up for a position in the AG’s office, and just like Thomas recused himself for Gore v. Bush because his wife was up for a position in Commerce. Supreme Court Justices always shy away from conflicts of interest.