I haven't commented much on Harriet Meirs other then to say it was obvious to me that she was picked to be a worker bee, which the court badly needs. Today, there is a tempest in a teapot because her 57-page answer to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire was “incomplete and insulting”.
Of course, in the days of the internet, you can download her answers yourself and make up your own mind.
My conclusion: Congress sucks.
Here are a couple of the “insulting answers”:
Q: Has anyone involved in the process of selecting you as a judicial nominee (including, but not limited to anyone in the Executive Office of the President, the Justice Department, or the Senate and its staff) ever discussed with you any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning your position on such case, issue, or question? If so, please explain fully. Please identify each communication you had prior to the announcement of your nomination with anyone in the Executive Office of the President, the Justice Department or the Senate or its staff referring or relating to your views on any case, issue or subject that could come before the Supreme Court of the United States, state who was present or participated in such communication, and describe briefly what transpired.
No.
Q Did you make any representations to any individuals or interest groups as to how you might rule as a Justice if confirmed? Please describe and provide four (4) copies of all communications by the Bush Administration or individuals acting on behalf of the Administration to any individuals or interest groups with respect to how you would rule if confirmed.
No.
Think Congress is surrounded by Yes-Men, don't want to hear from a No-Woman? The Senate needs the word No explained to them? That explains why the women in D.C. avoid the Capital building. Perhaps some NOW activists can picket the SJC with “No means No” signs...
Meanwhile, an important question on judicial activism got a 2 and a half page response, which had this great paragraph:
“Judicial activism” can result from a court’s reaching beyond its intended jurisdiction to hear disputes that are not ripe, not brought by a party with standing, not brought in the proper court, or otherwise not properly before the court because of the case’s subject matter. An additional element of judicial restraint is to be sure only to decide the case before the court, and not to reach out to decide unnecessary questions. The courts have the essential role of acting as the final arbiter of constitutional meaning, including drawing the appropriate lines between the competing branches of government. But that role is limited to circumstances in which the resolution of a contested case or controversy requires the courts to act.
I liked the whole 2.5 page answer, personally.
Here's her answer to the “dues payment” thing:
Q List the date(s) you took the examination and date you passed for all states where you sat for a bar examination. List any state in which you applied for reciprocal admission without taking the bar examination and the date of such admission or refusal of such admission.
State Bar of Texas Examination administered in July 1970.
Admitted to the State Bar of Texas on September 18, 1970.
Reciprocal Admission to the District of Columbia Bar on April 4, 1997.
Earlier this year, I received notice that my dues for the District of Columbia Bar were delinquent and as a result my ability to practice law in D.C. had been suspended. I immediately sent the dues in to remedy the delinquency. The non- payment was not intentioned, and I corrected the situation upon receiving the letter.
So Harriet volunteered some information, and now the Democratic members want details? Give it a rest! Maybe the DC Bar didn't send her a bill, so she didn't pay it.
Personally, I score it this way:
Cheap Publicity Stunt by the Senate Judiciary Committee: 0
Harriet Meirs: 1
Hat Tip: ScrappleFace who posted both some “fake answers” (ScrappleFace is a parody site) and linked to the originals.
Recent Comments