NationStates Jolt Archive

The senate kind of forced Bush's hand in the SCOTUS nomination by requesting documents showing the counsel he had recieved from Miers. He responded by saying that the records were protected by executive privelege, and that granting free access to them would deny him the ability to seek candid counsel.

What do you think of the issue of executive privilege?

EDIT: And yeah, I misspelled privilege.

The senate kind of forced Bush's hand in the SCOTUS nomination by requesting documents showing the counsel he had recieved from Miers. He responded by saying that the records were protected by executive privelege, and that granting free access to them would deny him the ability to seek candid counsel.

What do you think of the issue of executive privilege?

EDIT: And yeah, I misspelled privilege.

I think Executive Privilege is bull shit... To be honest.

I think Executive Privilege is bull shit... To be honest.

So is it more important for us to know what advice the president is recieving, than to be sure that the advice he is recieving is candid?

Aren't we concerned with his actions and not his decision making process?

So is it more important for us to know what advice the president is recieving, than to be sure that the advice he is recieving is candid?

Aren't we concerned with his actions and not his decision making process?

We should be concerned with both.... He's chief executive.

Since Miers has little in the way of background... I'd be likely [in the senate's shows] to shoot down the nomination without having enough information to make a choice.

I also do not believe in "candid" advice.... Especially in dealing with public officials.

I think Executive Privilege is bull shit... To be honest.

Well, he could always claim attorney/client privilege for a lot of it.

The senate kind of forced Bush's hand in the SCOTUS nomination by requesting documents showing the counsel he had recieved from Miers. He responded by saying that the records were protected by executive privelege, and that granting free access to them would deny him the ability to seek candid counsel.

What do you think of the issue of executive privilege?

EDIT: And yeah, I misspelled privilege.


Executive privilidge has boundaries.

The president has the right to put people in place to manage his policies in various departments.

The Supreme Court is different though.

It is the central check and balance against abuse of power. It stands to examine the laws passed to ensure compliance with the Constitution. And, more importantly, it involves lifetime appointments, which extends a sitting President's priviledge to subsequent Presidents.

If you want to let your Presidents have carte blanche in appointing the people who are tasked with ensuring that the law passed are in compliance with the Constitution then you might as well use that document for toilet paper for all it will be worth. You will, in effect, be electing kings.

And frankly, the President is an employee of the people. Except in the case of National Security issues, the people deserve as free and open a process as possible regarding the decision making process. IF you want to appoint someone to a lifetime post who constantly gives crappy advice, the people should know that. If she gave GOOD advice, then the records would have so indicated.

The senate kind of forced Bush's hand in the SCOTUS nomination by requesting documents showing the counsel he had recieved from Miers. He responded by saying that the records were protected by executive privelege, and that granting free access to them would deny him the ability to seek candid counsel.

What do you think of the issue of executive privilege?

EDIT: And yeah, I misspelled privilege.
Most government in a democracy must operate in a kind of goldfish bowl. There are, however, some ligitimately private and nondisclosable relationships which should be preserved. The right of the Chief Executive to prevent disclosure of what he says to counsel should remain in place, IMHO.

The Supreme Court is different though.

It is the central check and balance against abuse of power. It stands to examine the laws passed to ensure compliance with the Constitution. And, more importantly, it involves lifetime appointments, which extends a sitting President's priviledge to subsequent Presidents.

If you want to let your Presidents have carte blanche in appointing the people who are tasked with ensuring that the law passed are in compliance with the Constitution then you might as well use that document for toilet paper for all it will be worth. You will, in effect, be electing kings.

And frankly, the President is an employee of the people. Except in the case of National Security issues, the people deserve as free and open a process as possible regarding the decision making process. IF you want to appoint someone to a lifetime post who constantly gives crappy advice, the people should know that. If she gave GOOD advice, then the records would have so indicated.

This has nothing to do with checks on his power to appoint, just whether counsel he recieves should be private.

It is also not whether she gave good or bad advice, it is whether advice givers should be forced to let the world know what their advice is. If is the same thing with with attorney/client privilege. If the client is not guaranteed privacy, he will not be completely forthright.

Most government in a democracy must operate in a kind of goldfish bowl. There are, however, some ligitimately private and nondisclosable relationships which should be preserved. The right of the Chief Executive to prevent disclosure of what he says to counsel should remain in place, IMHO.

This isn't a yes or no question, please explain why you think there should be nondisclosed conversations in the White House.

This has nothing to do with checks on his power to appoint, just whether counsel he recieves should be private.

It is also not whether she gave good or bad advice, it is whether advice givers should be forced to let the world know what their advice is. If is the same thing with with attorney/client privilege. If the client is not guaranteed privacy, he will not be completely forthright.


Well, priviledge would not have come up except that he wanted her appointed to SCOTUS. At that point the quality of her legal advice seems to be entirely within the realm of public interest - especially when the rest of her record on Constitutional Law or other related matters is so minimal.

It was his choice to put her up for scrutiny. Expecting to be able to do that and also shield her from it is assinine.

This isn't a yes or no question, please explain why you think there should be nondisclosed conversations in the White House.

If you believe that everything that the President says before he makes an actual decision (including any and all interim decisions, discussions, and plans that never make it to fruition or acceptance) should be out in public, then anyone who is President could be constantly ridiculed and second-guessed for all the plans that never were.

While you're at it, why don't we install cameras on the President and all White House staffers, and install them in all Presidential residences (White House, Camp David, Air Force One, etc.) and constantly video everything and broadcast it live on MTV. Even when the President is brushing his teeth or shaving in the morning - we might miss some subtle nuance of discussion while he's bitching about his razor in the morning.

A lot of people are unwilling to give their opinion on a matter, especially their frank opinion, if they know that what they say will be broadcast everywhere without limit. So, for starters, a lot of people would never work for any President.

If you don't believe this is already happenning, I suggest you look at the Harriet Miers fiasco. Apparently, Bush was forced to pick her because all the people they had on the short list refused to be appointed - precisely and solely because the approval process is intrusive, abusive, and largely an exercise in dirt digging and public humiliation.

When people are trying to look up your adoption papers and comment on your childrens' clothing - when you're being selected to be a Supreme Court justice - it's just too much. When they are digging in every root cellar trying to find something completely irrelevant to your public service or your positions on relevant matters - it's too much.

Aren't we concerned with his actions and not his decision making process?

We should be concered with his decision making process when his actions which stem from the decision making have proven time and time again to be BAD DECISIONS!

Examples- War in Iraq, Katrina Response, Banning Stem Cell research, Giving tax cuts to the rich, No Child Left Behind Act that leaves kids behind in droves, need I go on?

We should be concered with his decision making process when his actions which stem from the decision making have proven time and time again to be BAD DECISIONS!

Examples- War in Iraq, Katrina Response, Banning Stem Cell research, Giving tax cuts to the rich, No Child Left Behind Act that leaves kids behind in droves, need I go on?

Recent testing and research apparently vindicates the No Child Left Behind Act - the NAEP tests show it's working - (at the worst, one can only say that it's not hurting anything, so no children are being harmed by it).

The only executive priviledge I support is the Right of First Night.
Come on, Dave's beautiful bride, give us a kiss!

We should be concered with his decision making process when his actions which stem from the decision making have proven time and time again to be BAD DECISIONS!

Examples- War in Iraq, Katrina Response, Banning Stem Cell research, Giving tax cuts to the rich, No Child Left Behind Act that leaves kids behind in droves, need I go on?
Wrong. We should concern ourselves with the results and use those results to guide our decisions in the future. Why those decisions were made is irrelevant. We've elected a representative to make decisions and we have to live with the consequences of that election.

Confidentiality breeds honesty. Executive privilege is important. I had thought the Miers thing was based on lawyer-client privilege, but I've not been following that since she withdrew her name from consideration.

Wrong. We should concern ourselves with the results and use those results to guide our decisions in the future. Why those decisions were made is irrelevant. We've elected a representative to make decisions and we have to live with the consequences of that election.

Confidentiality breeds honesty. Executive privilege is important. I had thought the Miers thing was based on lawyer-client privilege, but I've not been following that since she withdrew her name from consideration.


The thing is that by shielding subordinates via privilege, we don't get to see the results of that subordinate's work - only the results of the president. So equating presidential decisions to assessing the skills of subordinates is comparing apples and oranges

I think that privilege does have a place to play in the course of the daily work for the reasons you state, however when you then put the subordinate up for review for a lifetime appointment, then you have made this person's record a matter of public interest and some privilege must be waived.

No-one would have been asking for records of her opinion if she had not been nominated. And privilege would certainly have been correct to apply should anyone have asked for those records before she was nominated.

But then she WAS nominated, and there was a compelling state interest in knowing.

So if you want someone as part of your inner circle, fine. Expect all the privacy that the law allows.

But don't then nominate that person to a higher office that requires approval, and tell the Senate "They're terrific - can't prove it - just trust me" and when they ask, so what can you show us to back that assessment up say "Ooohhhhhh, it's a big secret".


Because that is abusing privilege imho.