Randy Barnett asks whether Dobson can be subpoenaed. Though he does not offer a firm opinion, his instinct sounds similar to my position. He has thrown the question open for discussion in the comments to his post.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Profile
Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQs)
Contributor:
Oh,
That
Liberal Media
CaliforniaRepublic.org
Linked by:
Best of the Web
The Corner
How Appealing
Hugh Hewitt
InstaPundit
Kausfiles
Power Line
The Volokh Conspiracy
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Sep | Nov » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Powered by WordPress.
Is there any evidence that Dobson doesn’t want to testify in support of Miers (generally as opposed to specific conversations with White House personnel)?
It seems to me that if he were concerned that PFAW and NARAL had too much influence on the confirmation process, he might welcome the opportunity.
Comment by c — 10/11/2005 @ 6:47 am