WHY? I’ll tell you why…

Sincerest apologies for blind Bush admin haters (and they are legion). Feel free to come after me with guns blazing on this, but I just can’t help myself.

I truly believe this is simply GREAT. It’s a long time coming and I was wondering when it was going to happen.

Monica Goodling, counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and liaison to the White House, cited the politically charged and “perilous environment” of the House and Senate judiciary committees in refusing Monday to testify about her part in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. In a letter to the Senate committee, her lawyer says the “potential for legal jeopardy” from “even her most truthful and accurate testimony” is “very real,” and cites the recent conviction of I. Lewis Libby for lying during a CIA-leak investigation.

To use a technical legal term, huh?

Before Goodling, 33, can assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, she must believe that her testimony could somehow lead to evidence that she committed a crime. So what’s the crime she’s worried about? The mention of Libby suggests that it’s perjury, but as Professor Orin Kerr, a criminal law expert at George Washington Law School, points out, you can’t take the Fifth to avoid being prosecuted for lies you plan to tell under oath.

Blame it on Ken Starr if you want to, but this “perjury trap” thing is REAL and kudos to Goodling for deciding to keep herself out of trouble by telling them to go straight to hell.

The author here misses the point. Goodling knows that she will be asked so many mundane and stupid questions that almost anything she can’t recall can be ruled as perjury down the road. She is protecting herself from an Arthur Miller style drowning, and she has that right. If they had something on her they would indict her. They don’t. Just like they didn’t have anything on Scooter Libby either. And he’s going to jail.

Anyone know how many U.S. Attorneys were summarily dismissed under Clinton’s administration. How many Senate hearings were there then?

This is a non-story, and despite the ENDLESS blogging on it, (sorry MEJ) there is nothing that can be said for political appointees being fired. They’re fricking political appointees.

Why Is a DOJ Lawyer Taking the Fifth? | TIME

It’s Alito

Monday, October 31, 2005

It’s Alito

Time to pop open a Scalia-lite.

Posted at 07:39 am by Johnny B

Echo!

A roundup on Miers (I’ve been spelling it wrong all week. oops. oh well.)

Ann Coulter says nasty things about W

You go girl! Tell me what I need to think!

Thomas Sowell is a bit more reasonable

Most tellingly, Geraldine Ferraro practically endorses Miers (I wish it was spelled “Myers”)

Liberals are by and large silent. Not a good sign. Will someone please slap Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (to start).

Posted at 09:22 am by Johnny B

My inbox

I found this in my inbox:

Dear John,

Today, President Bush announced his choice to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as the next Supreme Court Justice: Harriet Miers. Ms. Miers is the third woman to be nominated for the Supreme Court, and like Justice O’Connor is a legal trailblazer. Ms. Miers is an extremely well-qualified and fair-minded individual who is committed to interpreting the law instead of legislating from the bench.

President Bush selected Ms. Miers after embarking on a thorough and deliberate thought process. This confirmation however promises to be much more contentious than the confirmation of Judge John Roberts. Before Ms. Miers was even announced many Democrat groups said they would oppose her. They have no interest in giving Ms. Miers a fair hearing or vote. They are promising to throw every punch, make every accusation and pressure every Senator to oppose this nominee no matter what her qualifications may be. We have to be prepared to counter their actions and that is why Harriet Miers needs your help.

To ensure Ms. Miers is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, I need you to do three things.

1. Call your Senators. Tell them Harriet Miers has your support and deserves theirs.

2. Sign our petition in support of the timely confirmation of Harriet Miers.

3. Call talk radio, write a letter to the editor of your local paper and tell your friends and neighbors why you support the President’s choice.

Harriet Miers has a record that demonstrates a commitment to faithfully applying the Constitution. For more information on the nominee, go to http://www.gop.com.

In the coming years and decades, the decisions the Supreme Court makes will greatly affect all of our lives. We need a jurist on the court who will not legislate from the bench, who will approach cases with an open mind and who will be fair. Ms. Miers is that jurist. Call your Senators. Tell them to vote yes on the confirmation of Harriet Miers.

Sincerely,

Ken Mehlman,
RNC Chairman

I don’t remember getting one of these for the Roberts nomination.

Posted at 11:23 am by Johnny B

	Posted by Reagan_Gahagan @ 10/06/2005 12:32 PM PDT
	I got the same email from Mehlman and the RNC. I am doing the exact opposite of what he asks.

	Posted by John Broussard @ 10/06/2005 01:05 PM PDT
	I don’t even know how I got on the list. Ashcroft must have been reading my emails or something. The Republican party is losing my support left and right. The Senators are a bunch of “jackholes”, and W is catering to them far too much.

	Posted by Reagan_Gahagan @ 10/06/2005 02:54 PM PDT
	I just called both of my Senators to tell them not to vote for Ms. Miers. After I told their secretaries to tell the Senator to vote no, Vitter’s secretary took down all of my contact information, and Landrieu’s secretary just didn’t give a $hit.

	Posted by Jordan @ 10/06/2005 03:46 PM PDT
	I would hate it if she’s confirmed and turns out to be another Warren, Souter, etc. But… do you really think we’ll get a more conservative candidate if the Dem’s are “successful” in thwarting this nomination? Whoever is advising W might even run further to the middle.

	Posted by Johnny B @ 10/06/2005 10:05 PM PDT
	Harry Reid has already signed off on her, essentially. At the DailyKos they said this nomination has the fingerprints of Laura Bush all over it, and that the Dems could be in a worse position. It’s lazy and weak on behalf of the administration. In this way Bush really backed conservatives in a corner. Jordan, you are right to say that this may be as good as it gets, and that Meiers might be better than a second choice. What kind of proposition is this for Republicans? It’s no mistake W gives a rousing speech about war days after this nomination. What good will be her loyalty to W be in three years?

The new judge

What can I say. I’m depressed. The best one could say, as a conservative, is that she’s a Bush crony. Well, she’s not very qualified, but she’s a good buddy of W, and he said to “trust us”, so here we go. She doesn’t seem to have a strong governing philosophy, which was the same problem O’Conner had. At least O’Conner was qualified. Any thoughts out there?

Posted at 06:28 pm by Johnny B

	Posted by RaisingOrleans @ 10/03/2005 06:34 PM PDT
	Not qualified at ALL…the only saving grace is the knowledge that Renquist was never aa judge prior to the supreme court either…still, that gives me little solace.

	Posted by Reagan_Gahagan @ 10/03/2005 08:07 PM PDT
	I completely agree. I was hoping that 43 would nominate a proven conservative in Edith Jones from the 5th Circuit. I was also hoping for a filibuster so that we could put the liberal threats to an end via the nuclear/constitutional option. I believe that 43 showed weakness because he didn’t want a drawn out fight while his numbers were low. I hope that this lady doesn’t turn out to be a Blackmun, Souter, or O’Conner (who I believe was the most destructive to the legal system because you never knew how she would rule). Gingrich ’08, Kerry ’08!

	Posted by John Broussard @ 10/03/2005 09:40 PM PDT
	The best case is if she signs off on all of Scalia and/or Thomas’ opinions. Even if she does that, she does nothing to advance the ball for constitutionalism, she just seems like a lightweight. My pick would have been Ted Olsen for Chief Justice with Roberts as the second pick. Compared to this woman, Roberts seems like a godsend. This is worse than W’s horrible first debate against Kerry, the nadir of his presidency. My prediction is W fails to avoid a fight, which seems to be the purpose of this candidate in the first place. My favorite pick would be Bobby Jindal, but he might be too young yet. What is the minimum age for justice?

	Posted by Reagan_Gahagan @ 10/04/2005 11:56 AM PDT
	There is no minimum or maximum age to be a supreme court justice. You don’t even have to be a lawyer to be a US Supreme Court Justice.

	Posted by Hemonster @ 10/05/2005 05:19 PM PDT
	I don’t know about the prevailing thoughts on this page, but I think it’s hilarious that this pick was made. Everyone is standing there wondering, “what do we do about this?” “someone tell us how to think?” It just makes me laugh to think of all the databases and warrooms and media outlets poised to engage in yet another round of “culture wars” – to no immediate purpose. If we can now have some quality questions of the nominee to ascertain her level of intellectual heft and personal perspective and prism of constitutional interpretation, that would be great. I never thought I would see a confirmation hearing where genuine questions will be asked (and hopefully answered) on CSPAN again. I for one, will be tuning in . . . E

	Posted by Reagan_Gahagan @ 10/06/2005 11:08 AM PDT
	As a conservative (no, I don’t speak for all conservatives), I will be contacting both of my Senators (1 Dem. and 1 Rep.) and asking them to vote no on her confirmation. I believe that the conservative base has far too many brilliant intellectual judges out there to confirm this lady. It’s not enough that she will always vote with Scalia and Thomas. If, God forbid, she ever gets to write a majority opinion, she could do some SEVERE damage to the rule of law, after the fact, by writing a sloppy opinion. Some truly brilliant lawyers will likely take her words and rip apart what conservatives have been working toward for decades.

strict constructionists and the constitutional law party

I wonder if Justice Roberts is enough of an originalist for the constitutional law party, and it’s fellow travelers (us?). I think somebody, someone who knew about astrophysics, should build a space travel machine to travel around the sun, pick up Thomas Jefferson (or better yet Alexander Hamilton) and bring them back to take up Rehnquist’s spot. Wonder what Teddy Kennedy would say?