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
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.
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.
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.
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."
This is very true. There are really alot of dumb things being said about this whole thing.
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.
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!!!
I agree
Jonah is a chip off Moms blockhead.
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.
A very intelligent response to the substance of his article
The experience question is a side issue. If she supports, racial preferences, she should be opposed regardless of experience.
NO, but tell me how you know for SURE that Roberts will vote the way you want, on the next Roe v. Wade
Never play poker with W.
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.
I thought so.
Clarence Thomas, the Best Justice on the Bench, was a career Bureaucrat.
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...
W check raised Harry Reid and some conservatives fell for it, too.
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.