Read this:
snip~
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/20/politics/politicsspecial1/20confirm.html?ei=5094&en=19c8ac980653a543&hp=&ex=1129780800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1129834859-twKatvjopkqtLWsBaLNMugThe letter also faulted Ms. Miers, who was President Bush's personal lawyer before entering the White House, for answering a question about potential conflicts of interest on the bench by merely citing ethics laws.
"We are aware of statutes and codes that generally govern these matters," the senators wrote, "but recusal decisions of Supreme Court justices are more complicated because they are not subject to further review."
"Please be more specific," the senators wrote, referring to how she might handle recusals in "cases arising out of matters on which you worked at the White House, or as a lawyer for President Bush in his personal capacity, or in service to his various campaigns."
Not subject to further review. Get it? She doesn't have to recuse herself. Then what is anybody going to do about it when she of course does NOTHING but Bush's bidding. That's right-nothing. And she aint gonna recuse herself.
snip~
Democratic aides, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the inquiry, said they had in mind cases arising from antiterrorism legislation or the torture of prisoners of war, among others.
Ya think? Oh yeah-free pass for torture from our Bush loving gal Harriet. But at least she gives out M&M's in her office. (my husband read this little personal tidbit about her)