« The pilcrow | Main | Another odd search string »

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Conspiracy theory of the day

If only I had it to do over again; if only I could retrieve the too-quick click on the "post" button; if only I had the ability to edit others' weblogs' comments — well, then, I would un-do the ungracious "Duh" with which I ended a comment that I left on this post from Adele M. Stan over at TAPPED.

It was rude, and I regret it. I also regret referring to the post's writer only by her surname, which had registered in my consciousness as a first name; in any event, addressing her as "Ms. Stan" would have been better-mannered.

I remain keenly skeptical, however, about Ms. Stan's argument that the real explanation for the Harriet Miers nomination to the SCOTUS was to "[g]et Miers out of the way before anyone thought to call her to testify on any one of the multiple scandals of which she may have known or partaken."

  • I gather that Ms. Stan is a widely published journalist but, I presume, a non-lawyer. Nevertheless, many journalists seem to have at least a passing familiarity with the concept of legal privileges against giving testimony, including the attorney-client and executive privileges. Indeed, some journalists are quite insistent that they are entitled to refuse to testify based on privileges decidedly less robust, and sometimes even based on imaginary ones. Then again, Dubya's not a lawyer either. So perhaps he, like (apparently) Ms. Stan, wasn't aware that those real and well-established privileges would have been an adequate basis to stonewall as part of the cover-up of everything about which Ms. Miers might be asked to testify. Whereas, by contrast, everyone knows that Supreme Court Justices are immune from having to testify about things they observed or participated in before taking the bench because of ... ummm ... the "I don't want to, and you can't make me, nyah-nyah, because I'm now on the Supreme Court" privilege? So perhaps that really was Dubya's motivation for nominating Ms. Miers.

  • There aren't many openings on the Supreme Court, however. If Dubya genuinely thought that the top lawyers within the Administration who were giving him mixed legal and political advice were vulnerable to questioning about their private counsel to him, he should have named AG-AG to fill the O'Connor slot when he withdrew Ms. Miers' nomination, rather than Judge Alito. After all, why should a president waste a Supreme Court nomination on someone who doesn't need the seat for the purpose of concealing evil presidential conspiracies? I guess that nominating Judge Alito was awfully short-sighted then.

  • On the other hand, I continue to be amazed at how stupid ol' chimp-cowboy Dubya was nevertheless prescient enough back in October 2005 to foresee the amazing political scandal (at least within the feverish minds of the Angry Left) that the firing of seven U.S. attorneys — political appointees all, now alleged to have been fired for political reasons (gasp!) — would turn out to be roughly a year and a half later. If Dubya is going to be prescient, I do wish he would be more consistent about it.

Of Ms. Stan's own prescience, her colleague Ezra Klein writes (links omitted):

All props to Addie, who really did call the Miers thing. There needs to be some sort of rule for the Bush administration's tendency to eventually, inevitably justify the most intensely cynical interpretation of their actions.

I believe that would be the "If you're already cynical to the point of paranoia, you'll be able to justify all of your further paranoia as well-deserved cynicism" rule.

Posted by Beldar at 02:42 PM in Law (2007), Politics (2007) | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Conspiracy theory of the day and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


(1) antimedia made the following comment | Mar 13, 2007 7:47:48 PM | Permalink

It still grates me to no end that Miers was deep-sixed by the right. I think she would have been a great justice.

But I could care less what the left thinks. They left the sanity room four years ago, never to return. Their opinions are worthless and useless.

(2) Jinnmabe made the following comment | Mar 13, 2007 11:40:59 PM | Permalink

As you may (or may not, that's ok too) remember, I was not a Miers fan, and am less of a fan for her for the SCOTUS after having read Supreme Conflict, the Jan Greenberg book. But it actually increased my appreciation for her job as White House Counsel. And thinking about it ever entering GWB's mind that he would nominate her for SCOTUS to somehow get her out of the way of a possible future investigation...I am at a loss for words.

"Hey, boys, let's hide her on the Supreme Court. No one will ever find her there!"

Actually, if he wanted Miers to go missing, he should have had her run for Senator of New York and then run for President.

(3) hunter made the following comment | Mar 14, 2007 5:59:11 AM | Permalink

The rabid BDS twits are no better and little different from the 911 conspiracy liars. Neither is constrained by fact. Both are historically illiterate. Each is complacent in their little self-absorbed deceits. The dhimmiecrats who are leading this Congress are so overplaying their hand. They are literally doing nothing, offering nothing, and will at this pace be a one term majority. To the extent that Ms. Stan's delusions resonate with the dhimmie leadership, it only makes me more confident in my bet on one term majority.

The comments to this entry are closed.