« Withdraw the Miers Nomination. | Main | Recoil in Nausea from the Miers Nomination. »
October 7, 2005
Investigate The Miers Nomination.
"Let me tell you this from the perspective of someone who litigates cases regularly in the Supreme Court of the United States. I'm involved in three three cases at the Court this Term, and believe me: I want Harriet Meirs up there voting on these critical cases."This, folks, is an outrage. The White House has lined up a lawyer with cases now pending before the United States Supreme Court to get on a White-House-sponsored conference call to tell conservatives that they should support the nominee so that she can vote in his pending cases!
This is dirty, dirty pool. Filthy.
Mind you, if Sekulow wants to say this stuff on his own, no problem. But here, in this conference call, he has the involvement and endorsement of the White House.
And if Harriet Miers has an inkling that the White House is lining up Sekulow to make this particular pitch, why, I would say that's disqualifying right there.
(One wonders, incidentally, whether Sekulow worked with the White House and participated in similar conference calls on the Roberts nomination--a nomination run by none other than Harriet Miers.)
Posted by Eric at October 7, 2005 12:02 PM
Comments
You forgot to mention one small, tiny detail. If the case if already pending before the court, then any incoming justice isn't going to participate in that case. As a "professor" of law, you should know that. Your scare tactics are unwarranted and unethical.
Posted by: Ralph at October 7, 2005 3:38 PM
Ralph,
I guess that explains why Chief Justice Roberts didn't participate in the oral arguments on the Oregon assisted-suicide case the other day.
Oh, wait. He did participate.
You know why? Because the "rule" you assert doesn't exist. New Justices do hear cases that are already pending.
Way to line up your facts before accusing someone of being "unethical," Ralph!
Posted by: Eric at October 7, 2005 3:47 PM
Just chiming in to add a citation in support of Eric's rebuttal:
Brown v. Board of Education -- yes, THAT Brown v. Board of Education. Case is pending while Vinson is Chief Justice. He dies of heart attack after oral argument but before decision. Earl Warren is appointed Chief Justice. And as we know, Earl Warren did participate in Brown. (Boy, did he EVER participate in Brown.)
Mike
Posted by: michael king at October 7, 2005 4:41 PM
Ralph? Ralph? Are you there?
Posted by: elvez at October 7, 2005 5:18 PM
So you caught me. Big deal. If I spam enough blogs with my presidentially approved talking points someone is bound to believe me. Yes I am an asshat.
Also, did you notice that whomever heads the White House search committee always ends up with the job.
Posted by: Ralph at October 7, 2005 7:44 PM
What isn't ethical (in case "Ralph" is coming back) is for a judge to hear a case on which they've made a prejudgement on the matter; in practical terms, judges rarely recuse themselves from cases even though they really do know how they're going to vote, unless they've made some statement or have some connection that clearly calls their impartiality into question.
Slam dunk.
Posted by: Ahistoricality at October 7, 2005 8:03 PM