Posted on 10/08/2005 10:44:49 AM PDT by quidnunc
The Washington Times reports that Karl Rove was "very involved" in President Bush's selection of Harriet Miers to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. This should put to rest the notion that Mr. Rove is a political genius.
-snip-
The world is made up of doers and kibitzers. We in the chattering classes are kibitzers. Many, like Mr. Will, have convinced themselves that thinking and writing about what other people do is more important than actually doing stuff. It isn't.
Harriet Miers is a doer. She practiced law where it matters most, in the courtroom. She was managing partner of a mega Texas law firm. For the last five years she has been staff secretary at the White House, a more important job than most of her critics realize, and White House counsel, at the intersection between law and policy, and as good a preparation for serving on the Supreme Court as a year or two on an appellate court.
Harriet Miers may not be a deep thinker. We'll find out during her confirmation hearings. But to assume she is not simply because she's a doer is unfair, and almost certainly inaccurate.
Mr. Bush has said Ms. Miers is bright, and a solid conservative. We should judge for ourselves in the hearings. But until then, conservatives owe him and her the benefit of the doubt.
I used to think conservatives were morally superior to the moonbats of the Left. But the reaction to the Miers nomination indicates we are just as petty, petulant, snobbish, short-sighted, self-destructive, and unfair as they are.
(Excerpt) Read more at toledoblade.com ...
I would think that a big player in a major firm would be considered a lot more qualified for a judicial position than a government lawyer (who as a general rule, especially in an administrative position, doesn't practice a lot of law, and generally only in one limited area.)
Thomas wasn't groomed from birth for a USSC position, he wasn't a stellar graduate of Yale, his undergrad school wasn't Ivy, and his government positions at DOE and EEOC weren't traditional launching pads for a judicial career. Why this sudden outcry on Miers, who's arguably got a better resume?
I stand corrected on one point - I found a more detailed biography of Thomas on line, and he apparently was house counsel for Monsanto at some point. Wasn't in private practice though.
Really....all I've offered.
See there you again showing how slow you are. My latest complaints here had nothing to do with sexism now...did they?
Sexism is actually the topic I've addressed the least. Did you really read ALL the threads I've posted on. Wow. Quite amazing.
Clarence Thomas was a known, committed conservative, who had already earned the everlasting enmity of contemptible, pathetic excuses for public servants such as the late Paul Simon and Howard Metzanbaum, and Edward "The Swimmer" Kennedy.
Miers has no such credentials, other than speaking on several occasions to the Federalist Society.
I suppose you feel that ACLU President Nadine Strossen-who's also participated in debates hosted by the Fed. Soc.-would be a suitable choice as well.
Apparently you haven't been listening to Ann Coulter. It's the number one objection that she has voiced.
It would appear that at least 50% of your comments on this thread deal with it. Who's the slow one again?
Sexism is actually the topic I've addressed the least. Did you really read ALL the threads I've posted on. Wow. Quite amazing.
Is it now? Well, it seems every thread I'm on you're slandering some legitimate critic with the sexist label. And while I can't say I've read them all, I've read most. Enough to know that your posts are completely devoid of logic and facts, and when that's inevitably explained to you, you do nothing more than lash out at the critics. Just like you've done in this instance.
Pretty pathetic, really.
You've distorted the issue. The following charge is correct: "If you're against Miers because she went to SMU Law School, you're an elitest snob." Unfortunately, some of the conservative pundits who are railing against her complain that she went to SMU law school. Yes, that makes them elitist snobs. The idea that a person of excellence (and Miers, in terms of her achievement in the law, is such a person) can be dismissed because she didn't go to an Ivy League law school, is pure, ignorant, laughable snobbery -- in this case, snobbery exhibited by people who have never achieved anything in the real world comparable to Miers' many courtroom triumphs on behalf of Fortune 500 companies. She's the one who has the right to look down on Ann Coulter, who never made partner with any law firm, but reportedly found herself "numbingly bored" by the intricacies of legal practice.
What do you think private practice is?
a big player in a major firm would be considered a lot more qualified for a judicial position than a government lawyer
This "fact" is irrelevant. The job of the managing partner of a law firm is to schmooze with the high and mighty and bring in business. The cases are argued by others. She may or may not be a good lawyer, but this fact is not evidence. There is a lot of evidence that she was well connected and spent a lot of time being well connected.
That's because Thomas had more solid conservative credentials, particularly when it came to racial politics. He was well known as someone who didn't drink the Kool-Aid offered by numerous self-appointed black "leaders", and in fact was a standing rebuke to them.
That would be the case if Coulter was being considered for a SCOTUS position. A little context does help here.
But didn't you say that all I've offered on ANY thread were complaints about sexism. LOL.
The truth is, I've brought up sexism on TWO threads out of many I've posted on.
Best to be accurate if you wan't to be taken seriously.
None of the politicians want to fight for principle. That is axiomatic. The GOP Senators don't want a fight. It's unseemly. The President surely doesn't want a fight.
I'd be cool on winning without a fight, but I know for a fact that sequence of events (winning without a fight) is fantasy.
The question presented was whether she was a competent lawyer, not whether she is a loyal conservative. Folks on this thread seem to think that the private practice of law does not prepare someone for the bench. That's demonstrably untrue, as plenty of good USSC judges have come direct from the bar (including Rehnquist). As for her personal qualifications, some seem to think that a managing partner is just an "office manager", and that's untrue as well (as I know from personal experience working in a big firm for 12 years).
As for Thomas, he spent a good deal less than a year on the Circuit Court, he was appointed in 1990, I assume it took some time to confirm him (the appointment got stuck in committee iirc) and then in 1991 he was appointed to the USSC. That's hardly enough time to warm his seat. I used to work for a federal court, and it takes at least a year for a judge to find his feet around here. Thomas's judicial "history" was a drop in the bucket compared to his work history. Some would argue that working in a government job is not much preparation for anything (my grandfather for one would never hire anybody who had worked for the government - said they weren't ambitious enough and tended to be lazy). I believe that an active private practice in a major firm with a stint as managing partner is at least as good a qualification as working for the EEOC.
That said, I don't think we know enough about this lady to sit in judgment yet. I can think of some managing partners that I wouldn't nominate for dogcatcher. All I'm saying is that her work experience is not insignificant and is not disqualifying per se.
My mistake.
What do you think private practice is?
You obviously never worked for either in house or private practice, if you don't know the difference.
The lawyers in private practice have a certain amount of contempt for in-house counsel, because they don't function in the "real world" and are generally completely myopic when it comes to their employer (i.e. unable to realistically assess legal risks). Of course, house counsel refer to firm lawyers as "outhouse counsel" - and think of them as amoral hired guns.
The job of the managing partner of a law firm is to schmooze with the high and mighty and bring in business. The cases are argued by others.
Never worked for a big firm either, I see. A managing partner who was merely a rainmaker would get nothing but contempt from the "real lawyers". Rainmakers get corner offices and a larger partnership share, excellent lawyers with outstanding people and management skills make managing partner. It's the hardest job in private practice.
I worked for a big firm in Atlanta GA for 10 years, so this is based on my own personal observation of office politics and personalities in that firm and in several others that I spent a lot of time in. I was a business and insurance defense litigator, with an appellate practice specialty.
However, the question does not hinge upon whether or not she is a capable-or even exceptional-attorney, it is predicated exclusively upon whether she will emulate Scalia and Thomas, i.e. the two justices that President Bush explicitly promised us he would keep in mind when making future appointments to the Supreme Court.
Thus far there has been absolutely no demonstrable evidence that this is the case, so to imply that President Bush has not defaulted on his campaign promise is incorrect.
But to return to our muttons, I think at this point we don't know one way or the other if she is a Scalia or a Thomas. Perhaps the hearings will shed some light. The refrain that most folks here are singing, though, is that she is not qualified by virtue of her career history to be a good judge. With that, I profoundly disagree.
I happen to agree with you that she would qualified for this seat, if we were to judge her solely upon her career as a practicing attorney.
However, there are a lot of other thresholds that a potential nominee has to cross-and yes, from my standpoint a very pivotal one involves that person's judicial philosophy-before he or she should even be considered for a spot on the Supreme Court.
Joseph Tacopina and Bruce Cutler are probably two of the greatest defense attorneys in this country, forget about this city.
However, I would not consider either one to have met the necessary criteria to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
"Has everyone last thier minds here?"
Looks that way, Hildy!
If you took out all those posts and just stuck to the ones discussing whether she's got a judicial philosophy, in Mark Twain's words "this book would be a pamphlet".
Especially when "commenting" is how you make your living. They should just talk about the weather; that will attract readers, for sure, for sure.
You could also ask why Kelley isn't following his own advice -- he certainly falls in the category of (paid) kibbitzer.
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.