"She doesn't have the gravitas in terms of the constitutional issues," said another senator who has been critical of Miers. The nominee, the senator said, would not answer questions about whether she would recuse herself if issues involving her work with Bush came before the high court.
That's scarey, too: she doesn't know enough about judicial ethics to know when she has to recuse herself? That's where the advantage of judicial experience comes in, boys and girls, and she ain't got it.
By all means, check out Michelle's blog today.
No Supreme Court justice has to recuse themselves on any case. Look at Scalia. The only cases he has recused himself on is one or two that may have mentioned his son.
He didn't recuse himself from the case about Cheney's energy committee, even though liberals (and some conservatives) were saying he should because he goes duck-hunting with Cheney every year.
Recusals are at the discretion of the justice.
These are strange times when M. Malkin recommends a NYSlimes editorial.
Surely H. Miers didn't really believe that the 14th Amendment requires "proportional representation".
She might make a great justice, but if she says things like that in the hearings Leaky and Co. are going to grab a leg and make a wish.
(I know: 'Don't call me Shirley.')