No Privilege for Miers

No Privilege for Miers

Harriet Miers’s slender public record makes it imperative that her advice the president on personal, executive and constitutional matters be fully disclosed to the Senate Judiciary Committee.


The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court gives the Senate Judiciary Committee a chance to redeem itself after conducting a Potemkin village version of advise and consent in its hearings on the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice.

In the Roberts hearings the committee timidly accepted vague answers that told it little about the nominee’s views on constitutional questions, and it deferred without a whimper to the White House claim of privilege for memorandums Roberts had written as deputy solicitor general. Those memos would have provided the best evidence of Roberts’s views, because they were relatively recent and because as deputy he was instrumental in fashioning the government’s position before the Supreme Court. After this disappointment we can be excused for wondering if the committee envisions its role as anything more than to weed out the occasional G. Harrold Carswell or Robert Bork. Such passivity is no longer tolerable. It’s a different Court today with a different docket.

Now comes the Miers nomination and a new chance for the senators on the committee to do their constitutional duty. The best evidence of Miers’s views on the federal statutory and constitutional issues likely to come before the Supreme Court resides in her advice to the Administration these past five years. Roberts at least had something of a paper trail beyond his memos in the Solicitor General’s office. Miers has no trail apart from her job in the White House. The White House has signaled its intention not to disclose her advice, citing executive and attorney-client privilege. Judiciary Committee chair Arlen Specter seems to agree. If that view prevails the hearings will be a seminar on constitutional law, with the nominee merely needing to prove she can pass, as she undoubtedly will. Constitutional law is not all that hard.

While it is difficult to judge the validity of any privilege claim without more information, probably most and possibly all of what Miers told Administration officials is in fact privileged under one theory or another. So what? The fact that information is privileged does not make disclosing it illegal. Privileges are waived every day, because clients conclude that it is in their interest to do so. This can happen, for example, if a company decides to reveal communications with its lawyers in order to persuade regulators that it has not misbehaved or that it has put its house in order.

Waiver does carry two risks for the White House. Waiving the privilege for one purpose can lead to loss of it elsewhere. So the President may fear that if he shares specific advice from Miers, the government will lose its claim of privilege if others want to use the same information in court. Second, premature disclosure of advice may compromise domestic or foreign policies currently under discussion but not yet implemented. However, neither risk justifies categorical refusal to waive privilege for all of Miers’s advice since January 2001. Surely she has done much in five years at the White House that can be shared with no danger to the government.

At the very least, the senators must demand all of Miers’s advice to the Administration. If the White House wants to withhold particular items, the committee should require it to justify its position. If the Administration stonewalls, the senators must stare it down, not buckle. It is an insult to the Senate and the nation for Bush to say that Miers is the best possible choice for the Court, or even a worthy one, and then cavalierly block discovery of the very information that supposedly supports this claim. This is not a partisan issue. It’s about the Senate’s institutional integrity–indeed, its constitutional relevance. Regardless of who is President and who the nominee, the question is whether the Senate will demand the respect to which the Constitution entitles it or choose instead to stage the confirmation equivalent of a show trial, where everyone gets a chance to look tough and smart for the cameras but the verdict is scripted in advance.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy