First Qualification Questions, Now Ethical Questions

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was already facing serious questions about her nomination with her scant experience in working on constitutional issues and her lack of paper trail. Now Miers might be facing some serious ethical questions.

When Miers was the managing partner of the Dallas-based Locke, Liddell & Sapp, her law firm provided investors with questionable legal opinions for an abusive tax shelter for $50,000 a pop, according to a February 2005 Senate report. The report also states that Locke, working jointly with the accounting firm, Ernest and Young, provided this legal opinion assuring clients that challenges to the tax shelter "should" be upheld in court. One problem, though, the Locke opinion relied on "dated and irrelevant case law and did not address the relevant facts [of the legality of the tax shelter]," according to one client's lawyer in an e-mail to Ernest and Young.

Since this information is coming from a Senate report, I have to believe that Senators are going to question her about this and I would be very surprised if this does not reach the MSM within the next few days. Miers better have damn good answers for this allegation because the first requirement of a judge is impeccable ethics.

I already hated this nomination because she has little experience in constitutional law and now with this revelation, I just loathe the nomination. But hey she was the most qualified one for the job, right President Bush?