HARRIET MIERS WRITES -- YEESH

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

[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.

[GarySpFc]

Meanwhile, the watchdog group Accuracy in Media says some members of the conservative media are distorting portions of Harriett Mier's record. AIM says reports that the Supreme Court nominee is on record supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court and homosexual adoptions are erroneous.

"There's no evidence for the charge," says AIM's Cliff Kincaid, adding that the "documents" allegedly supporting the reports have been "seriously distorted by WorldNetDaily and other outlets."

AIM also says a Chicago Sun-Times columnist is guilty of perpetuating the inaccurate reports. The columnist, Robert Novak, wrote that Miers chaired a panel the "recommended legalization of gay adoption and establishment of an International Criminal Court." But Kincaid says Miers was chair of a panel that simply passed along recommendations from various entities in the American Bar Association for consideration by members of the ABA.

AIM says "there's no evidence that [Miers] put her personal stamp of approval on those controversial positions."

[Diago]

I couldn't agree more on Podhoretz. He can't write. He can't think. He's just a hack. His opinions are worthless.

I'm not sure about Miers but the fact that Podhoretz opposes her makes me think she may be a good choice.

[aShepard]

Great article for a piece written by an ego-centric idiot.

Let's see one sentence about the subject, Meirs:

The rest of the piece about John Podhoretz.


It's a me, me, me, me, mini-me world

[Travis McGee]

Clara, face it. If Harriet wasn't W's pal, she'd wouldn't be on the "short list" of 10,000 for SCOTUS.

"Pal of the President" is NOT a qualification for SCOTUS.

That's just croneyism. And I DON'T trust W., not when he's left the border wide open, 4 years after 9-11, and promoted a bubble-headed cluless Barbie doll named Julie Meyers to head ICE. Even she admitted she knows NOTHING about the job. She is, in civil service terms, MAYBE a Major, being promoted to a three star general! PURE croneyism, above national security!

These are serious times, NOT a time to reward personal buddies and nieces of the powerful to critical postitions!

[JCEccles]

Antonin Scalia

Harriet Miers

[hsalaw]

"The longer they rant, the less I respect them."

Agreed. And when they claim that publishing op-ed pieces is the test for SCOTUS, my lack of respect becomes disgust.

[rhombus]

Our problem is not in rarefied questions of interpretation in cases that most honest people would flip a coin over. Our problem is with cases where most honest people would see the answer as obvious, but which Elitists don't like, because it doesn't advance their policy objectives.

Well said. Obviously you have a higher degree from a top university and stand head and shoulders above the common dirt clods who usually infect this place. Everyone knows you can vote for something before you vote against it. See you around the Vinyard.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

We're infested with the same quality minds, that in the other camp, continue to slobber over all things Clinton.

Bush could nominate a steaming pile and we'd hear, Oh, such brilliant strategery!

[KingKongCobra]

Oh great job with that elitism thingy, Pod.

So, first argument - Miers went to the wrong school. That one flopped.

Now, second argument - She doesn't write like an elitist snob. I doubt this will work much better.

Try again, loser.

[GarySpFc]

I hope Miers is as strict a constructionist as is sorely needed on the Court at this point in time.

When Miers nomination was first announced I phoned my buddy in Dallas and asked if any of his friends knew Miers. It turns out his dad knew her. He stated, "I have known her since she was on the city council. Even then she was a stickler for going by the city charter, and often stated the courts are out of control, and we need to get back to the Founders original intent."

[Condor51]

...John Podhoretz
These people are Northeastern elitist snobs.

Poderoretz.. Elitist?!? Snob?!? Bwaaaaahaha!! That's utterly ridiculous.

Excuse me but Podhoretz is the kind of guy you'd meet at the local bowling alley or pool hall.

BTW, throwing the 'elitist' canard at CONSERVATIVES who won't drink the Kool-Aid is becoming tiresome. No... make that HAS become tiresome.

[hsalaw]

"Since when is respect for excellence snobbery ?"

Since when are the nattering nabobs of the press the ones who determine "excellence"? If they could actually do anything, they would. Since they can't, they just nitpick everyone else.

[silent_jonny]

the fact that Podhoretz opposes her makes me think she may be a good choice.

I agree with that, and offer this:

the fact that Kristol opposes her makes me think she may be a good choice.

[drt1]

Hope she hasn't changed during her sojourn in the Beltway! :-)

[Travis McGee]

Yep. Mindless lemmings.

[Old Seadog]

And I have all the respect in the world of John Podhoretz.

[KingKongCobra]

Yeah Kristol. I just happened to run across his 2004 column recently. It was about how Bush needed to replace Cheney with McLame.

Totally reminded me why I hate that guy (Kristol).

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Any opinion on this piece?

BUSH'S SUPREME COURT NOMINEE

[EveningStar]

ping

[Hugin]

The Constitution is a simple, straightforward document. You don't need years of training in constitutional law to get it right. You only it to get it wrong.

Besides, his analogy is terrible. The better analogy would be that she has been acting in TV and movies for the last 30 years, and now is moving to the Royal Shakespeare Company. After all, she has been a highly succesful lawyer (including White House council), not some unrealated career like a columist.