Executive privileges

From the NYT's report on the President's press conference today:

Bush also sent a clear signal that he would resist, on grounds of executive privilege, providing senators documents related to Ms. Miers's work in the White House. At least some Democrats are likely to seek such records, especially since Miers, who has never been a judge, has no "paper trail" of opinions.

"I just can't tell you how important it is for us to guard executive privilege in order for there to be crisp decision-making in the White House," Bush said.

The Constitution does not specifically mention executive privilege, but the Supreme Court has recognized the need for confidentiality between high government officials and their advisers. The court has concluded, however, that executive privilege is not absolute.

How about that; there's no right to 'executive privilege' in the Constitution. Now is that the same thing as 'privacy'?

Sauce for the goose ...

Just when you thought the news couldn't get any worse for the GOP...

Tom DeLay gets a second indictment.

And I was all set to write about how Harriet Miers was involved in the coverup of George Bush's TANG records, when it was revealed that, while she was the boss of one of Dallas' largest law firms, she was either involved in a Ponzi scheme or was too stupid to know it was going on.

And the hits just keep on comin' ...

Harriet Miers

Who?

No judicial experience? A 60-year-old unmarried woman who zealously guards her privacy, who donated to Al Gore's campaign, who once said Bush "was the most brilliant man she ever met"?

I want lots of questions asked of, and answered by, this nominee.

And I expect the Senate, including my two GOP toadies, and especially the 22 Democrats who voted for John Roberts, to zealously act in that regard.

Update: David Frum has already removed his quotation of Miers listed above. Thanks to the wonders of technology, we have his original paragraph saved here.