PrintRecusal worries overstated
Hugh Hewitt debunks the worries of Charles Krauthammer and others that Harriet Miers will have to recuse herself from too many cases reaching the Supreme Court.
...the recusal requiriement is (1)limited to matters in which she had substantial and personal involvement, and (2)is decided solely by the SCOTUS member for whom recusal is asked. Some of the cases making their way to SCOTUS may have involved Miers in a direct and substantial way, but I think that is very unlikely. When supporters of her nomination argue, as I have, that the Court would benefit from a justice who has spent four post 9/11 years in the White House, it is not so that she will be able to throw her weight into upholding Gitmo procedures, but so that cases involving Article II powers across the board will have the benefit of scrutiny by someone who deeply understands the urgency behind "energy in the Executive," to quote Hamilton. Dozens of cases over the next two decades will touch on the GWOT, and on related issues. The recusal issue is a straw man, and seven years of DOJ service didn't stop Robert Jackson from able service as a justice, nor did his term as Chief American Prosecutor at Nuremberg prevent him from opining on presidential powers in Korematsu.
Thoimas Lifson 10 07 05
