When all else fails, there’s the war on terror

October 4, 2005

How difficult is it for the White House to convince its allies that Harriet Miers is the best of all possible nominees for the Supreme Court? The Bush gang feels it’s necessary to connect her nomination to terrorism.

Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, yesterday held a conference call with conservative leaders to address their concerns about Miers. He stressed Bush’s close relationship with Miers and the need to confirm a justice who will not interfere with the administration’s management of the war on terrorism, according to a person who attended the teleconference. […]

Mehlman yesterday unveiled a politically powerful argument linking Bush’s nomination to the war on terrorism. He said that as a former White House counsel Miers would know the importance of not letting the courts or the legislative branch “micromanage” the war on terrorism.

At first blush, this seems like unusually inept exploitation of the war. (“Confirm Harriet Miers or the terrorists win…”) Mehlman’s point, however, was probably broader than that — Miers has had a role in the White House’s counterterrorism policies that she would, for better or worse, bring to the high court.

Adele Stan touched on this briefly yesterday in a piece for The American Prospect.

Prospect readers will recall that, even as he interviewed at the White House for his nomination, Roberts rendered a decision in the administration’s favor regarding the U.S. internment of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

One has to wonder what Miers’ role was in the Roberts interviewing process. Was she aware of the Guantanamo case? (It’s hard to imagine that she was not.)

Should be an interesting area of inquiry during the hearings. She won’t respond to the inquiries, of course, but the questions should be good.

But don’t you know – 9/11 changed everything and so everything this administration does has to for political reasons have to be justified/filtered through 9/11 – even when in reality it doesn’t.

  • What *really* pisses me off about this argument is the neo-cons’ constant decrying of “activist” judiciary and their drum-beating over the principle of judges “interpreting” or “applying” the law neutrally, without regard to their preconceived policy preferences, yet it’s acceptable to assure the base that Mier will write an a priori blank check to the administration with regard to infringement of civil liberties in the name of the war on terror? Hypocrites.

  • I’m currently reading Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” which I highly recommend for a number of reasons. In a chapter near the end of the book, called “Science and Witchcraft,” Sagan quotes at length from a 1631 book called “Cautio Criminalis,” (Precautions for Prosecutors) by Friedrich von Spee, a Jesuit priest writing in protest of the witch-burning craze sweeping through Europe. Von Spee writes (quoted in Sagan at 408):

    “In these [witch] trials nobody is allowed a lawyer or any means of fair defense, for witchcraft is reckoned an exceptional crime of such enormity that all rules of legal procedure may be suspended, and whoever ventures to defend the prisoner falls himself under suspicion of witchcraft– as well as those who dare to utter a protest in these cases and to urge the judges to exercise prudence, for they are forthwith labeled supporters of witchcraft. Thus everybody keeps quiet for fear.”

    Sounds chillingly familiar, doesn’t it?

  • “He said that as a former White House counsel Miers would know the importance of not letting the courts or the legislative branch “micromanage” the war on terrorism.”

    So I listened to W this morning and I distinctly heard him say it was important that the Judiciary does not infringe or impede the Congress (ie. no “Activist” judges). How exactly does that square with Mehlman’s quote?

    Oh wait, an “Activist” judge is not one who makes law from the bench. It is one who makes law I don’t like from the bench.

    Personally I’d like to be afly on the wall when Roberts dresses-down Harriet for being an unqulaified nincompoop and embarassing the court. Let’s not forget Judges can be impeached!

  • Digby brings up the point that getting her on the court is important for The Machine. The Machine is determinied to stay in power, either by purchase or foul play. Today’s press conference showed that if things got bad with a pandemic outbreak of Avian Flu, Bush wouldn’t hesitate to call out Martial law.

    I don’t want to connect the dots, but the way these criminals behave, the only that has slowed them is the court system. If they can control the courts…

    God, I hate how these criminals make the militia conspiracy theories seem sane.

  • Don’t get sidetracked about “activist judges” or abortion rights, or even conservative policy. This administration has one criteria; will you give us the answer we want? Whether it is the legislative or judicial branch, the issue is irrelevant as long as there is a rubber stamp approval.

    By picking someone whose main qualification is loyalty, Bush has all but assured that Miers will rubber stamp what ever he asks–whether it be regarding Guantanamo or about any other issue that Rove deems politically important.

  • It’s too late for Roberts, but this idea might work on this one.

    The way to deal with someone who refuses to answer questions is to slime them. Ask “when did you stop beating your wife” questions. Questions that presume guilt. Any attempt to answer them just makes them look worse.

    This would have been fun to do to Roberts. Bummer we missed that opportunity, but if she’s going to be as evasive as he was, let’s go full guns this time.

    • Comments are closed.