HARRIET MIERS WRITES -- YEESH

National Review Online -- The Corner ^ | October 8, 2005 | John Podhoretz

[AmishDude]

I know Bork, for one, has no special information about her. I guess I'm not impressed by the SCOTUS like others are. I think they're all imbeciles, including Scalia. I think "great legal mind" is an oxymoron. I guess it's just me.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

He had no special information-or insight-related to the Roberts confirmation, but that didn't prevent him from endorsing the choice, however ambivalently.

I agree with you, but take exception to the characterization of Scalia.

There are only a few justices during the 20th century, e.g. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Justice Harlan, Potter Stewart, William Rehnquist, who even approach the towering intellect and judicial foresight of Antonin Scalia.

I'm also pretty keen on Clarence Thomas, in case you haven't already noticed.

:O)

[Iwo Jima]

I don't believe that anybody who hasn't worked in a big law firm and experienced the rivalries, Byzantine politics, and covert warfare going on inside can fully appreciate what it means for somebody to have been managing partner of a big law firm.

If she could manage THAT job, eight old guys on the Supremes are going to be a cakewalk.

That is a very ignorant statement. A mananging partner of a law firm does not manage the partners. He/she manages the business side of the practice, not the practice of law.

There is no way that Ms. Miers is going to manage any aspect of the Supreme Court.

[Iwo Jima]

I have read it, you are wrong.

[Sensei Ern]

hopelessly out of my depth.

[Sam the Sham]

Let me explain the concept of excellence to you.

Excellence is knowing what you are talking about. Excellence is having command of your subject. Having command of your subject and knowing what you are talking about isn't "ponderous bullsh*t" as ignorant people might think.

[Sam the Sham]

You naively fail to comprehend that someone who doesn't know her stuff will fall in with the prevailing mindset of those around her, be overwhelmed by them, and end up seeking their approval as the Times hails her "growth". Didn't Sandra Day O'Connor end up singing hosannas to "international law" ?

Of course bosses have staffs to do their research. But if they don't know the business they end up doing whatever their staff has agreed on among themselves. You should try to get out more.

[Pharmboy]

I'm with you on this one, TM. I wouldn't mind her being a bud of Dubya if she had served well on a circuit court for 5 years or so; but, when all she's got is friendship with the boss, I worry.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I've spoken to the office of both my Senators and informed them that, should Ms. Miers make it through comittee, I would be comfortable with her skills as applied on the bench of the Supreme Court. The fact this nomination angers people from both sides of the aisle is indicative that President Bush, after consulting many others and thinking for himself, made this choice carefully, with all the political and constitutional ramifications in mind. As another poster has written, President Bush is not about poking liberals in the eye. (If it were me, I'd be giving them wedgies.)

[AnAmericanMother]

I don't think I'm ignorant, I've seen it up close and personal. I worked in a large Atlanta firm for 10 years.

Any managing partner who is not a top-flight attorney is despised by the "real lawyers", and doesn't last long. He may be a transactional lawyer rather than a litigator, but he has to be good at his "real job" or he gets zero respect. And a managing partner with no respect is worthless at the job of managing the business side.

In addition, he also has to manage the cutthroat politics that always seem to be simmering just below a boil. What I meant by my statement is that the somewhat convoluted interpersonal politics on the USSC (see The Brethren if you can stand it) will be like a walk in the sun after the vicious stuff that a managing partner is used to dealing with on a daily basis.

[Iwo Jima]

I have practiced law in Texas for over 25 years in large, medium, and small firms. The managing partner has almost always been a "non-essential" lawyer. Some have the respect of the lawyers, some do not.

I guess it just all depends.

[AnAmericanMother]

Whoa. I can't imagine having a managing partner who didn't know his stuff -- but I worked in a large litigation firm. Litigators are a pretty huffy bunch, and proud. Our managing partner for most of my tenure there was a darned good litigator, he was also a persuasive schmoozer but could drop the hammer when necessary. There were plenty of folks who were bigger rainmakers, but they didn't have the skills necessary to herd all those cats. And the guys in the trenches made disparaging remarks about the "non essential" lawyer/rainmakers -- "best place to hide something from him would be between the pages of a law book" and so forth.

I guess indeed it does just depend.

[AmishDude]

Remember that the general perception of Thomas was also that he was a lightweight. Scalia's fine as far as it goes, but he's no Paul Erdõs. Speaking of Scalia, some interesting comments.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

He did not defend Miers. He gave a broad defense of the notion that a non-jurist is competent to serve on the Supreme Court.

That being said, I have already stated-several times prior to and subsequent to the posting of that article-that Scalia would not agitate against this nominee.

In fact, I would lose respect for him if he chose to do so.

[AmishDude]

It is just curious that he chose to express this particular view, that a justice ought to come from the non-judicial world as well as lamenting the process. Note that his is one of the main lines coming out of the White House also.

[GarySpFc]

Agreed, there are valid arguments supporting Miers. We're just not seeing them here - just rabid personal attacks on loyal Bush fans who have reservations about this decision.

Indeed, the attacks are rabid. I asked a friend to look at this site and provide his personal opinion without providing mine. What shocked me was when he came back with the same conclusion as to their nature. We both independently came to the conclusion the attacks are primarily against Miers because she is an Evangelical Christian. They will deny and rationalize all day long, but if you look carefully you will see the bigotry and hate.

[loveliberty2]

Regarding her writings in these articles, isn't it important to consider the reason for the articles and, especially, the target audience?

Given those two considerations, a reading of these should not be expected to reveal any great constitutional knowledge, nor should it be expected to reveal the style of "inspired" writing Miers may be capable of using when writing an opinion on some cherished constitutional principle.

Over 2000 years ago, a famous leader chose a rough and uneducated (that is, by the ruling elites of the day) fisherman as the "foundation stone" for what was to become a movement that changed the world. That choice probably wouldn't have "measured up" to the criteria of his contemporaries either, but the centuries-long impact stands on its on.

Warning: that last paragraphy must not be interpreted as any attempt to many any implication of comparison of the two leaders--just an observation about the futility of predicting outcomes based on inadequate knowledge.

[Fenris6]

"We both independently came to the conclusion the attacks are primarily against Miers because she is an Evangelical Christian. They will deny and rationalize all day long, but if you look carefully you will see the bigotry and hate."

Thats Bull. I could care less if she was Evangelical. You guys are no better than Jesse Jackson - we criticize someone who happens to be black and you make it about racism. Playing the bigotry/hate card tells me you can't mount a valid defense against criticism.

[GarySpFc]

Not just refusing to join the Federalist Society-when offered, no less-but actually recoiling from working in concert with other Bush administration officials who had roots in that organization.

Doesn't it seem strange to you that Leo Leonard, head of the Federalist Society, has endorsed her?

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

No, it doesn't seem strange at all.

No more strange than James Dobson's tentative endorsement, after being strong-armed by the White House.

Someone who hopes to remain in the good graces of the current administration does not publicly trash that administration's nominees for Supreme Court vacancies.