Big surprise. Bush is refusing to release documents and records of his conversations with Harriet Miers to the Senate. He’s using the attorney-client privilege and confidentiality defense, apparently. According to Dubya, the Dems and Republicans making these requests are wanting to know about the ‘decision-making process’ that went into the nomination of Miers, and what were her recommendations. Gee, I wonder what all they discussed during their conversations. Hmm.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Monday that he will not release any records of his conversations with Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers that could threaten the confidentiality of the advice that presidents get from their lawyers.
“It’s a red line I’m not willing to cross,” Bush said.
Both Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are demanding more documents on Miers, including from her work at Bush’s counsel.
“People can learn about Harriet Miers through hearings, but we are not going to destroy this business about people being able to walk into the Oval Office to say, Mr. President, this is my advice,” Bush said after a meeting with his Cabinet.[…]
True–we can learn more about Miers during the hearings, and there is attorney-client privilege, and ‘all that’. Or least during the hearings we can learn all about her prepared statements and carefully coached answers–just like every other SCOTUS nominee.
“Recently, requests, however, have been made by Democrats and Republicans about paperwork out of this White House that would make it impossible for me and other presidents to be able to make sound decisions,” Bush said. “In other words, they’ve asked for paperwork about the decision- making process, what her recommendations were. And that would breach very important confidentially.”[…]
Schumer: Miers lacks votes
New York Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings on her nomination said Sunday that she doesn’t have the votes to be confirmed. Republicans countered that Schumer cannot predict how the GOP-controlled Senate will decide Miers’ fate.
Many Republicans have yet to commit to approve President Bush’s second nominee to the high court, and some outside conservatives have started organized efforts to force the White House to withdraw her name.
And there’s still trouble for Bush in some areas of the Conservative Base…..
Conservative groups like the Third Branch Conference, Eagle Forum, and Center for Military Readiness are now organizing efforts to force Miers’ withdrawal, including starting a Web site: http://www.withdrawmiers.org/.
“If President Bush continues with this nomination, he’s in serious danger of permanent losing the support of the majority of the conservative movement,” said Richard Viguerie, a conservative direct-mail fund-raising guru who runs American Target Advertising.
Miers’ confirmation hearings begin Nov. 7. Schumer said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” that lawmakers of both parties are concerned about Miers’ independence and judicial philosophy.
“I think, if you were to hold the vote today, she would not get a majority, either in the Judiciary Committee or on the floor,” he said. “I think there is maybe one or two on the Judiciary Committee who have said they’d support her as of right now.”
Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, rejected the notion that Miers’ nomination was shaky. He said most senators are waiting for the hearings before making up their minds. “There are no votes one way or another,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”[…]
Democrats, too, have expressed concerns about whether Miers could sever her close ties to Bush and rule independently once on the bench.
Oh we’ll just have to wait and see, once she gets on the SCOTUS.
and there is attorney-client privilege
If Bush is the client, he can choose to waive that privilege.
Over at Ann Althouse’s blog, she and many of her commenters seem to think that this is how the White House is setting this up so that they can save face when they withdraw the nomination.
All nominees have some sort of paper trail that the senate can evaluate in its confirmation hearings. Bush should have thought about that before he nominated his private/White House counsel. He can’t have it both ways.
President Bush is entirely correct that he has the right to withold his conversations with his lawyer. Whether or not he should is another story, given that he’s trying to get votes for his lawyer to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Bet he didn’t figure that this was going to be so hard.
One consideration is that if Bush releases any conversations that discuss a third party, he might become subject to lawsuits from those third parties depending on what he said about them. He also might become subject to lawsuits if he discussed information that other people gave him under the presumption that his discussion of that information with his lawyer would be protected from public scrutiny under client-attorney privilege. I’ll bet exclusion of such conversations from disclosure would leave pretty thin pickings on what he could disclose.
Oh we’ll just have to wait and see, once she gets on the SCOTUS.
I’m not sure if I detect a sarcasm tag here. Unlike Roberts, I am not at all willing to presume that she’ll be confirmed.
On what basis would he become “subject to lawsuits,” Ron?
I’m not sure, I must confess. I’m not a lawyer. But say I’m negotiating a contract or agreement with another person. Both of us have lawyers, and we have discussions with our lawyers on the agreemet; what we think of it, what our financial situations are, what agreements we may have with other third parties that might affect or be affected by the agreement.
First, although I don’ tknow this for a fact, I think that the proposed agreement may well be confidential, and the other party may have legitimate objects to having it made public. Certainly there are lawsuit settlements that are specifically set up to be confidential and that would meet the above description. And any information about 3rd parties might have come to the knowledge of the person in question and their lawyer via a confidential agreement or other confidential sources. Revealing such information might be a confidentiality violation that is actionable.
Again, I’m just speculating.
Then there’s the situation where someone was talking to their lawyer and said, “I think Joe is an asshole. I know he’s sleeping with Bill’s wife.” If that was published, would Joe have a basis for an action?
Geez, he wants privacy, maybe he ought to nominate justices who’ll SUPPORT the right to privacy?