Posted on 10/08/2005 8:52:39 AM PDT by JCEccles
The lovably irascible Beldar, the Texas trial lawyer who is one of the two people on earth hotly defending the Miers nomination (the other being our buddy Hugh Hewitt), has posted a convenient link to articles written by Harriet Miers during one of her stints as a bar association honcho. He did this in part to address a charge I made on Hugh's show that Miers shouldn't be taken seriously because over the past 30 years of hot dispute on matters of constitutional law she hadn't published so much as an op-ed on a single topic of moment. Thank you, Beldar. But you shouldn't have. I mean, for Miers's sake, you really shouldn't have.
Miers's articles here are like all "Letters from the President" in all official publications -- cheery and happy-talky and utterly inane. They offer no reassurance that there is anything other than a perfectly functional but utterly ordinary intellect at work here.
Let me offer you an analogy. I was a talented high-school and college actor. I even considered trying it as a career at one time. As an adult, I've been in community theater productions (favorably reviewed in the Virginia local weekly supplement of the Washington Post, yet!) and spent a year or so performing improv comedy in New York. I'm a more than decent semi-pro. But if you took me today and gave me a leading role in the Royal Shakespeare Company where I would have to stand toe to toe with, say, Kenneth Branagh, Kevin Spacey, Meryl Streep, Kevin Kline and others, I would be hopelessly out of my depth. I would be able to give some kind of performance. But it would be a lousy performance, a nearly unwatchable performance.
Would that be because I hadn't acted at their level for a few decades? Would it be because I don't really have commensurate talent? Who knows? Who cares? I would stink. And based on the words she herself has written -- the clearest independent evidence we have of her capacity to reason and think and argue -- as a Supreme Court justice, Harriet Miers would be about as good.
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.
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)
I have read it, you are wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
I guess indeed it does just depend.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.