Grabbing randomly, the President is among my sources on this. (Honestly it is just a bit of Miers lore I've picked up.):
She is plenty bright. As I mentioned earlier, she was a pioneer in Texas. She just didn’t kind of opine about things; she actually led.
First woman of the Texas Bar Association; first woman of the Dallas Bar Association; a woman partner of her law firm; she led a major law firm. She was consistently rated as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States — not just one year, but consistently rated that way, as one of the top 100 lawyers.
[I wouldn't have taken a bet on Miguel Estrada passing the Senate,]But I think it would have been good for our side to have the discussion.
I'm not so sure. I would have enjoyed the spectacle, and I would have felt an invigorating contempt for Liberals, but in the long run I think it would have been more likely to hurt our cause. Rule of thumb: Victories are generally better than defeats. It doesn't always hold true, but that is the way to go if you have a choice.
With the other nominations he fought for, Brown, Owen, Pryor, etc., it was clear why. It didn't involve trust, it was obvious on it's face. On this pick, for the SUPREME Court, he is asking for the ultimate leap of faith. For many of us, it's extremely difficult (for many, impossible) because there's nothing (or too little) to point to to gauge what her performance as a Justice will be.
There is something. Bush's (and Mier's) track record on judicial appointments. If that wasn't obvious to you from the start, I suppose it won't be just because I mentione it. But there it is.
"She was consistently rated as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States — not just one year, but consistently rated that way, as one of the top 100 lawyers."
I'm sorry, but I will need a little more sourcing than that (not saying that you can provide it) to believe this statement, particularly since it is internally inconsistent (is she one of the top 50 women or top 100 lawyers, either, both?).
As for the rest, there's really no point in arguing because neither of us can be certain about the outcome. I have a frame of reference of what I believe a Supreme Court Justice should be. She doesn't fit it. Either one day I'll have to adjust my frame or I'll be more convinced than ever about it. Time will tell.
Victories are generally better than defeats. It doesn't always hold true, but that is the way to go if you have a choice.Good point. Bush is playing to win. Not to grandstand.
Uh, that's top 100 WOMEN lawyers, not top 100 lawyers.