I accept the criticism and difference of opinion, but (I am sure you knew there was a 'but' coming) my statement infers an 'unwritten' ONLY or as the main basis for opinion.
Your example, while an obvious exaggeration, rises to level that her writings, or lack thereof, do not rise to. My disqualification was not complete, only that it should not be a sole determinator, or necessarily the major one. I actually prefer putting it in perspective to disqualification.
Recusal did come up in another thread, and while a legitimate point, it is not as major as some would paint it to be. Did Ginsberg recuse herself from any cases involving the ACLU ? By the same reasoning, why would Miers have to recuse herself from any case involving Bush, assuming there will be some ?
If she is a good lawyer, she would have given him the pros and cons on any advice, which would hardly disqualify her. Scalia recused himself from a case because he made a public comment on it before it came before the court, Miers has made no public comments. All judges have pre-conceived ideas, but they do not recuse themselves unless there is some strong pre-existing judgement/statement that would force them to recuse themselves.
"I accept the criticism and difference of opinion, but (I am sure you knew there was a 'but' coming) my statement infers an 'unwritten' ONLY or as the main basis for opinion. Your example, while an obvious exaggeration, rises to level that her writings, or lack thereof, do not rise to. My disqualification was not complete, only that it should not be a sole determinator, or necessarily the major one. I actually prefer putting it in perspective to disqualification."
Certainly, nothing has been produced that would rise to the level of 'Nazis rule!' out of Miers, but were that to pop up, I would hope you'd see the necessity of withdrawing her nomination. A minor point, to be sure, but you stated and seem to continue to state that writings shouldn't be the only evidence used to disqualify. I disagree wholeheartedly. I think a single particularly egregious writing, on its own, would disqualify any nominee.
"Recusal did come up in another thread, and while a legitimate point, it is not as major as some would paint it to be. Did Ginsberg recuse herself from any cases involving the ACLU ? By the same reasoning, why would Miers have to recuse herself from any case involving Bush, assuming there will be some?"
This ACLU-Ginsberg comparison is disingenuous. As John Wohlstetter has noted, "Under federal law, if Ms. Miers is confirmed, and has professionally advised on a matter that subsequently comes before her on the bench, she must recuse herself. Federal law is quite specific here. Title 28 U.S. Code sec. 455 covers recusal of judges, justices, and magistrate judges. Sec, 455 (b)(3) recites one ground for mandatory recusal: "Where [a judge, justice, magistrate judge] has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." Sec. 455 (e) adds: "No justice, judge or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b)."
One case already is wending its way to the Supreme Court: a July 15 unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, upholding the right of the government to detain and try unlawful combatants without giving detainees rights under the Geneva Conventions. One member of that three-judge panel was Chief Justice Roberts, who must thus recuse himself on appeal to the Supremes."
"If she is a good lawyer, she would have given him the pros and cons on any advice, which would hardly disqualify her."
Federal law says differently. Read the provision above.