Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

The predictable news story has hit the cycle: TalkLeft: Bush Didn’t Ask Miers About Abortion Views. I could swear I read the same article about Roberts just a few weeks ago.

And just like last time, my first reaction is that the press is being snookered: ordinarily asking questions like that is Cheney’s job. And much as I looked, I never saw any news reports — or Senatorial questioning — about what Cheney asked Roberts in their long meetings.

I suppose in this case, though, it’s possible that, knowing Miers so well, they didn’t even have to ask. And in fairness, it’s possible that had someone asked Miers wouldn’t have answered, as Eric Alterman Jeralyn Merritt subbing at Altercation quotes her as saying such questions are improper. Then again, that also means she won’t be saying much to the Senate, doesn’t it.

Posted in Law: The Supremes, The Media | 2 Comments

News You didn’t Read Last Week

The biggest US domestic news you didn’t hear last week was that the Pentagon has decided to pour $50 billion — maybe 20% of the money needed to rebuild New Orleans — down a rat hole. Having already spent $19 billion over twenty years to build a prototype that doesn’t work, the Pentagon is planning to start “full rate production” of the Opsrey V-22 tilt rotor aircarft. Unofficial estimated cost of the 458 craft planned? $100 million each, for a total just under $50 billion — plus inflation, cost-overruns, and the usual.

And the @#$$#@ of it is, the V-22 doesn’t workif exposed to dirt. I’m told, however, that dirt is sometimes found in the places one might want to land it.

Adding insult to injury, the contractors ran an offensive anti-Muslim ad promoting the V-22, which incidentally shows an artist’s conception of the plane doing what it was originally intended to do, but can’t.

The good folks at the Project on Government Oversight are all over it at the POGO Blog.

[timestamp corrected]

Posted in National Security | 2 Comments

The Case FOR Miers

MAXSPEAK ENDORSES HARRIET MIERS FOR SCOTUS.

I think he’s serious.

Posted in Law: The Supremes | 4 Comments

Heartburn for Conservatives?

Eric Muller engages in a little forensic scholarship, and digs up Harriet Miers’s law review note from 1968.

There just might be a little quote in there to give conservatives heartburn. (Understood in context I think it’s a quite reasonable position consistent with traditional federalism, but it certainly isn’t a quote that screams judicial restraint.)

Posted in Law: The Supremes | 3 Comments

Roberts, CJ Takes His First Decision

Justice Roberts Takes Supreme Court Bench:

Roberts wore a plain black robe, without the gold arm stripes that had been used by his predecessor, William H. Rehnquist.

A good start.

Posted in Law: The Supremes | 1 Comment

Double or Nothing

I don’t know much about Harriet Miers, but on paper she does not appear to be the most qualified nominee available. I like the idea of someone with political experience, and don’t see the absence of judicial experience as any sort of disqualification. The problem is that the overall c.v. is rather thin compared to, say, a Roberts, a Scalia, a Souter, a Warren, or even a Stewart.

At first sight, her overwhelming qualification appears to be loyalty to Bush, and that, in these times, is no great selling point.

Oddly, the initial conservative reaction is not favorable. [UPDATE: The article at that location has been neutered. ]

The obvious initial issues, post New Orleans, are cronyism and competence, and I expect that these issues will dominate the moderate and liberal reactions in the next few days; the issue may get a lot of additional oxygen if the ABA rating is anything less than its highest endorsement — and it could be.

If the conservatives end up splitting on this nomination, or even just lukewarm, it’s possible that this nomination might fail on a straight vote, without even a filibuster.

Which raises this Machiavellian question: WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?

Basically, there are three completely different possibilities that jump out at me:

The first one is that they are losing their grip over there in the White House, and this is just dumb. Plausible, but even post-Brownie, one must be wary of misunderestimating this crowd’s political sense.

The second one is that they are not losing their grip in the White House, that Ms. Miers has depths which are not immediately obvious, and that they will become manifest in due course. I’ll bet this is the least likely scenario, but it pays to keep an open mind at this early stage.

And the third scenario…well, it looks like this: The White House has hedged its bets. Either it gets its loyalist onto the Supreme Court, which will be handy for all sorts of reasons ranging from Guantanamo onwards. Or it doesn’t. And that’s fine too. The battle over Miers will take months, meaning that the battle over the next really red-meat nominee will take place much closer to the next election. Which is just the time you want to re-ignite the culture wars for maximum electoral effect. Plus the Senate, having rejected one nominee, may have less stomach for a second fight. (Not that this worked for Nixon, of course.)

Posted in Law: The Supremes | 6 Comments