Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MIERS' EXPERIENCE [Jonah Goldberg posting an interesting email]
NRO Corner ^

Posted on 10/07/2005 10:29:53 AM PDT by Uncledave

MIERS' EXPERIENCE [Jonah Goldberg]

I get a lot of email making this point, which I think is fair as far as it goes:

I did a quick review of the bios of the current Justices. If you leave out the departing O’Connor, the only Justice with any significant private practice experience left on the Court is Kennedy, at about 14 years. Souter and Scalia had a handful of years right out of law school; believe me when I tell you that doesn’t count. Thomas had a couple of years in-house at Monsanto between government positions. Roberts had 10 years at Hogan & Hartson, but as I understand it, it was exclusively appellate work, which only barely counts.

J. Harvie Wilkinson (my Con Law professor years ago) has no private practice experience. Michael Luttig had about 4 years.

Miers, by contrast, has over 25 years as a commercial litigator. Though I’ve seen some of the derisive comments about the intellectual rigor of that branch of the profession as compared to the supposedly more rarified field of Constitutional Law, that is nonsense. A good commercial litigator’s practice is, in fact, one of the most intellectually challenging careers in the profession. Every case, every business you represent, and every deal is different. You have to explain unfamiliar and complex commercial issues (which are found in both “large” and “small” cases) to judges and juries.

If you confine appointments to Constitutional scholars, you’re going to have nothing but academics and government lawyers, which is what you’ve basically got there now.

My point is that if Miers is a good lawyer, the fact that she hasn’t had an opportunity to deal with search and seizure issues in her career is not disqualifying. In fact, her familiarity with many of the regulatory, tax and other commercial issues faced by the Court will be much greater than her colleagues. And maybe we’ll have fewer of those ridiculous 7-part tests to deal with.

Posted at 01:22 PM


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: harrietmiers; orwellian; rationalization
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

1 posted on 10/07/2005 10:29:55 AM PDT by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

He makes a good point. I am waffling on this pick - but I don't think her testimony will reveal much other than how she can defend herself.


2 posted on 10/07/2005 10:34:49 AM PDT by Cathy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

So is this the new dodge we get to avoid discussing Roe v. Wade? Let's just pick a good commercial lawyer who never ltigated about abortion! Oh and by the way, that's even better than a lawyer who has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court! Give me a break.


3 posted on 10/07/2005 10:35:27 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers (2,4,6,8 - a burka makes me look overweight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Roberts had 10 years at Hogan & Hartson, but as I understand it, it was exclusively appellate work, which only barely counts.

Prime example of non-Ivy League snobbery.

Appellate work "only barely counts" at the USSC because ... 99.99% of the time they hear appellate cases?

Memo to Jonah: Get mom's permission before writing.

4 posted on 10/07/2005 10:39:05 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Goldberg is absolutely right about this. I have been a commercial litigator for more than thirty years. I have argued at both the trial and appellate levels all kinds of cases. I have researched and argued constitutional issues when those were germane to the case I was handling. I like to think I am good at explaining arcane points of fact and law and good at simplifying issues. Most successful litigators have these skills. I think Ms. Meirs could be a breath of fresh air to a bench that really needs it. As Goldberg so aptly notes, "No more seven part tests."


5 posted on 10/07/2005 10:39:23 AM PDT by blau993 (Labs for love; .357 for Security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
A good commercial litigator’s practice is, in fact, one of the most intellectually challenging careers in the profession. Every case, every business you represent, and every deal is different.

This is very true. There are really alot of dumb things being said about this whole thing.

6 posted on 10/07/2005 10:41:14 AM PDT by Bahbah (Member of the Water Bucket Brigade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
George W. Bush has an MBA from Harvard. He's dealt with academic blowhards who don't really have experience with the stuff they talk about.
George W. Bush also has real world executive experience. He knows what really counts in the area of management.

George W. Bush deals with government lawyers all the time. Every lawyer he deals with is brilliant and knows the law really, really well. But Bush has probably found that some of these government lawyers don't really understand how the world works. They just know the law.
George W. Bush has known Miers for 10 years. He knows she's smart. He knows that she understands the law. He knows she has real world experience. He knows how she approaches things.

After working with her for 10 years, he decided she was a better choice for the court than the other people. I've liked his other choices very much. Miers took me by surprise, but I think he made a very smart choice.

7 posted on 10/07/2005 10:42:40 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cathy

He makes a good point. I am waffling on this pick - but I don't think her testimony will reveal much other than how she can defend herself.
-----
I read the earlier (sadly, now removed) post from Charles Krauthammer, about Meirs' selection. It really is a difficult issue for serious conservatives. It is kind of like playing poker and never being able to look at your hole cards...serious conservatives are very serious about our Constitution and protecting it, and would rather be playing their hand with ALL CARDS UP!!!



8 posted on 10/07/2005 10:42:55 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blau993
Ms. Meirs could be a breath of fresh air to a bench that really needs it. As Goldberg so aptly notes, "No more seven part tests."

I agree

9 posted on 10/07/2005 10:43:25 AM PDT by cynicalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

Jonah is a chip off Moms blockhead.


10 posted on 10/07/2005 10:44:16 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Goldberg's right. All this garbage about Miers being an intellectual lightweight because she went to SMU is disgusting.

She has a degree in advanced mathematics and 30 years' experience as a successful litigator.

She's smarter than the Frumbag - who couldn't hack it as a lawyer - and the rest of her critics.

11 posted on 10/07/2005 10:45:27 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave troops and their Commander-in-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
Jonah is a chip off Moms blockhead

A very intelligent response to the substance of his article

12 posted on 10/07/2005 10:46:01 AM PDT by cynicalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cathy

The experience question is a side issue. If she supports, racial preferences, she should be opposed regardless of experience.


13 posted on 10/07/2005 10:46:51 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers
So is this the new dodge we get to avoid discussing Roe v. Wade?

NO, but tell me how you know for SURE that Roberts will vote the way you want, on the next Roe v. Wade

14 posted on 10/07/2005 10:47:52 AM PDT by cynicalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Never play poker with W.


15 posted on 10/07/2005 10:48:29 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

I second the view of this post. Real world experience counts a great deal in the practice of law--especially 25 years' worth. A lot of cases involve constitutional questions and are litigated by attorneys other than "constitutional lawyers" so the idea that only constitutional attorneys are qualified to deal with constitutional questions is simply not true. I can't think of a single course at law school that didn't involve significant constitutional issues to resolve.

A lot of so-called constitutional attorneys either teach primarily and consult on constitutional issues on the side, are government attorneys, or practice in that rarified atmosphere where they might handle two major constitutional cases a year. Most attorneys are "veterans" if they have handled four or five Supreme Court appeals during their entire careers.


16 posted on 10/07/2005 10:49:36 AM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicalman

I thought so.


17 posted on 10/07/2005 10:49:51 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Say this part again Thomas had a couple of years in-house at Monsanto between government positions.

Clarence Thomas, the Best Justice on the Bench, was a career Bureaucrat.

18 posted on 10/07/2005 10:52:11 AM PDT by hobbes1 (Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you dont have to...." ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers

How about someone with some virtue and common sense?

The decisions aren't rocket science. Written opinions are often just legal drivel. The Constitution is not a complicated document. It's not that difficult for someone to follow.

And, what in the world does abortion litigation have to do with this? Either you're FOR killing babies or AGAINST killing babies.

Those pesky new ultrasound machines make the argument...


19 posted on 10/07/2005 10:54:11 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle (We Self-Destruct. We Blame Bush. That'll Show 'Em!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: js1138

W check raised Harry Reid and some conservatives fell for it, too.


20 posted on 10/07/2005 10:56:10 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle (We Self-Destruct. We Blame Bush. That'll Show 'Em!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson