Miers pressed for more data
on Oct 19, 2005 at 4:02 pm
The two senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday asked Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers to fill in a number of significant blanks she left Tuesday when she supplied answers to a lengthy Committee questionnaire. One request that could provoke a fight with the White House: much fuller detail of the constitutional issues she has handled as White House Counsel, a request that presidential aides may see as an inquiry into attorney-client matters. The letter also seeks to probe what White House aides may have done privately to assure outside groups of Miers’ views, in order to win their support for her nomination.
The letter by Chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, and ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont can be found here. It asked for responses by next Wednesday. The letter is courteous in tone, saying the answers she previously gave were “helpful.” But, the tone aside, it makes clear that the Committee’s leaders were not satisfied with many of her responses. It suggests she supply a “supplement to your responses, specifically addressing the areas outlined below with as much detail, particularity, and precision as possible.”
Separately on Wednesday, the Committee announced that hearings on Miers’ nomination will begin at noon on Monday, Nov. 7. They are expected to continue through the week. C-SPAN announced plans for video and Internet coverage.
In the Committee’s original questionnaire, Question 17 asked Miers to describe “in detail any cases or matters you addressed as an attorney or public official which involved constitutional questions.” It went on to spell out the kind of detail being sought. Miers’ entire response regarding her work as White House Counsel said:
“As Counsel to the President, I am regularly faced with issues involving constitutional questions. I am called upon to advise the President and White House officials on presidential prerogatives, the separation of powers, Executive authority, and the constitutionality of proposed regulations and statutes.”
One area of that work in which some Committee members are known to be interested is the role, if any, that Miers played in advising President Bush on his constitutional authority to use coercive measures, including perhaps some forms of torture, to get intelligence information from suspected terrorists.
The Committee leaders’ letter Wednesday told Miers:
“In answer to question 17, you explained that as Counsel to the President you are regularly faced with issues involving constitutional questions, but gave no specifics about the issues themselves, or the work that you personally did. Please provide the Committee with details concerning the specific matters you handled, the constitutional issues presented in those matters, and the positions you took related to those issues. This question was designed to help the Committee learn more about your experience with constitutional law, and if most of it was gained during your years in the White House, it is important that we know more about the specifics of that experience.”
In the Committee’s questionnaire, Miers was asked in Question 27 to discuss “from beginning to end” the circumstance leading to her nomination. Her responses were brief summaries of how she wound up with the nomination. The Committee also asked in that Question if anyone involved in selecting her ever discussed with her any matter that could be interpreted as seeking “any express or implied assurances” about her positions on issues. Her answer was a simple “No,” indicating there had been no such communications with her. It further asked whether any representations were made to any individuals or interest groups about how she might rule as a Justice. Again, her answer was “No,” indicating no representations were made.
The leaders’ new letter asked her to respond further, discussing “any and all communications, including those about which there have been recent press reports, in which friends and supporters of yours, among others, were said to have been asked by the White House to assure certain individuals about your views. If you do not have first-hand knowledge of these communications, please endeavor to determine what sorts of communications, if any, took place.” The “press reports” to which the senators referred apparently are those suggesting that White House, Republican Party aides and personal friends of hers had given assurances that her views were conservative, and that she did not support the Supreme Court’s abortion decision in Roe v. Wade.
The letter also asked Miers to go into more detail about “any categories of cases from which you plan to recuse yourself” if confirmed for the Court. In her questionnaire response, Miers had cited federal laws against conflicts of interests. The Committee leaders said they wanted her to address this question “specific to your situation.”
The senators also asked Miers to supply more detail about her temporary suspension from the D.C. Bar for non-payment of dues, information about civil lawsuits against her Dallas law firm, further information about questionnaires she filled out while running for the Dallas City Council (including, presumably, a questionnaire declaring her support for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion), and a list of all litigated matters in which she participated, going well beyond the selective list she supplied earlier.
