The Federalist Society was new at the time, and was certainly politically charged (it still is). The current head of the Federalist Society strongly supports her.
Her comment about the NAACP was wrong, even then. However, the NAACP of today is MUCH MUCH worse than it was back then. If you'll recall, Presidential candidates of BOTH parties were courting favor with the NAACP at the time, and conventional wisdom at the time was that is was a legitimate organization concerned with black issues.
She's so stealth that she took the pro-racial discrimination position in the Michigan educational affirmative action cases (and her side prevailed at the White House.)
I don't know the details of the case, or the legal technicalities. I DO know that her job was to assess the legal situation, including both the actual law and the interpretations put on it by the Supreme Court, and then advise the White House on how to proceed. Without knowing the "rest of the story", it is impossible to say how this makes her look. I DO know that jumping to a conclusion without knowing the facts is unwarranted.
She's so stealth that while other movement consevatives were actually fighting on the playing field of constitutional law, Miss Miers was leaving her mark....on the Texas Lottery Commission.
She hasn't published much. So what? She was out working in the real world. I'd much rather have a Supreme Court justice who has actually had to run something.
Perhaps your complaint is that she ran a state sanctioned gambling operation, a spot she was appointed to by then Governor Bush. I don't like state lotteries, but Texas has one. Given that Texas has a lottery, are you saying Governor Bush should have appointed someone he thought would NOT do a good job?
While you're at it, you might hold her rapid rise to head of a major law firm against her as well. Or her rise to head of the Texas state bar. None of these things would give her any incentive to spend her time writing scholarly tomes for obscure legal journals. She had real work to do instead, and did it.
All in all, I'd MUCH rather have someone with real world experience than someone who's spent the last 20 years being called "The Honorable" and hearing "All rise" when she enters the room.
Thanks for engaging, and not name-calling. I think you do offer so mitigaitng factors for consideration.
I will add, however, that in the Michigan educational affirmative action cases, Miers and the rest of the White House's task was not to act as a judge and pick the position that best squares with recent Supreme Court decisions, but the choose which position to advocate as a matter of public policy. There was support in precedent for both the pro and anti-racial discrimination positions (but, I would argue that the tie-breaker should certainly have been the the actual text of the 14th Amendment, which is actually, you know, part of the constitution.) So Miers, in my opinion, in this case placed political correctness above constitutional principle.