Senators to look into whether `assurances' were made on Miers

[alonzomourning23]

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Senators from both parties said Sunday they plan to question whether White House adviser Karl Rove may have given inappropriate "back room assurances" to secure conservative support for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said his committee "is entitled to know whatever the White House knew" regarding Miers and her views on important legal issues.

"If there are back room assurances, and if there are back room deals, and if there is something which bears upon a precondition as to how a nominee is going to vote, I think that's a matter that ought to be known by the Judiciary Committee and the American People," Specter said on ABC's "This Week."

Specter said he didn't believe that Miers had pledged her vote to anyone, and Pat Leahy, D-Vt., ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee said Miers - Bush's White House counsel - had told him as much. Still, both agreed that an inquiry is in order.

"If anybody ... wants to be on the Supreme Court or any court and are going to get that appointment based on assurances of how he or she would vote, they're not qualified to be on that court," Leahy said.

The White House acknowledged that Rove has been among those making calls to key conservative supporters, but denied that anything improper has been promised.

The issue arose from remarks made on a syndicated radio show by James Dobson, founder of the conservative advocacy group Focus On The Family. Dobson said last week that he had spoken in confidence with Rove about the Miers nomination and that their conversation convinced him to support her.

"When you know some of the things that I know, that I probably shouldn't know, you will understand why I have said - with fear and trepidation - that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice," Dobson said.

Dobson was unavailable for comment Sunday.

His remarks have triggered concern in both parties that Miers has revealed how she might vote, if confirmed, on sensitive issues such as abortion, school prayer and gay marriage. Even if she hasn't, critics suspect that the president has some private knowledge regarding Miers' views that he is not sharing with those who must vote for her confirmation.

Both Leahy and Specter said they would be willing, if necessary, to summon Dobson and Rove to clear up the matter.

"I think we will make sure whether assurances (were) given, whatever witnesses that requires," Leahy said.

White House spokesperson Dana Perino said Sunday that Rove, a key adviser during Bush's two terms as Texas governor, has known Miers for 15 years. She said Rove has spoken with Dobson "and many others" in a series of "outreach calls" to garner support for Miers' nomination.

"In those conversations (including those with Dobson), he was not asked, nor did Karl offer any insight into how Harriet Miers would vote on any particular case," Perino said.

It is doubtful that Rove would testify before the committee, since as a presidential adviser he is subject to a White House assertion of executive privilege.

Some conservatives have continued to express concern that Miers - with no academic resume and no judicial experience - lacks the credentials to replace a pivotal court moderate, Sandra Day O'Connor. And even implacable abortion foes such as Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., say they are dissatisfied with White House guarantees that as an Evangelical Christian she opposes abortion.

"A lot of us wanted to see somebody that was a well-formed jurist so that they had a track record of what they would do in cases coming in front of the court," Brownback said on CBS News' "Face The Nation."

"Harriet Miers doesn't have that track record and doesn't seem to be well-formed in her judicial philosophy, having never been on the bench," Brownback said.

Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the White House has invited such concerns by attempting to market Miers' faith as an indication of her likely performance on the court.

"The thought that you market a candidate based upon their faith, I think, is an inaccurate and not a right way to go forward," Schumer said. "This idea of winking and whispering, `Here's what her views are, but she can't tell anybody else,' that just demeans the process."

Gary Bauer, president of the American Values Coalition, said the process is not likely to improve by the time the Judiciary Committee holds hearings, which could begin as early as Nov. 1.

"We're not going to find out anything more than what we've already found out about Harriet Miers because the whole strategy here is this so-called stealth strategy: picking candidates for the Supreme Court who have no judicial record on things that really matter," Bauer told "Fox News Sunday."

Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan criticized President Bush for being too unwilling to look outside his inner circle for such a critical pick.

"This is a faith-based initiative," he told NBC "Meet The Press." "The president is saying `Trust me,' and that's not enough."

"If there's any issue that the president's earned, it's trust," said Southern Baptist leader Richard Land. He predicted that Miers will "vote the way he (President Bush) would want her to vote" and that as a Texan she would consider anything else disloyal.

"If someone is disloyal, in Texas they're right down there with child molesters and ax murderers," Land said.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/12861500.htm

 

[kakomu]

According to a professor of mine who has a previous student in the higher echelons of Bushdom, Miers is "The smartest conservative woman that is confirmable".

Besides the obvious conservative label Bush looks for, he's looking for a woman to replace O'Connor and he's looking for a smart Bush Buddy (rather than a puppet Bush Buddy...however, I'm not sure if Bush Buddy requirements include puppet as a pre-requisite).

If the senators on the judicial committee are accusing Bush/Rove of a conflict of interest in their picking of a supreme court nominee (that is, they're picking someone that is unfairly stacked in their favor), it's hard to really mount a good defense, since it's the president's prerogative to pick whom they want to pick, and the Senate's prerogative to make sure that the person who was picked is responsible, knowledgeable and competent enough to work properly, regardless of Ideological slant, or strong convictions (such as Scalia). That is not something that can be argued.

Anywhoozle, I'm not too concerned about back room dealings in this matter. Having never been on the bench really isn't all that important either. What is important (to me, at least) is that Bush decided to pick not someone who is reputable or popular or a big, bigger, biggish name, but chose to pick his own personal lawyer to be the new justice. This is just obnoxious because he's just rewarding his buddies (cronies?) who hang around him all the time, rather than picking someone that will be a bit more at home in that sort of job.