The Harriet Miers I Know

New York Times ^ | October 14, 2005 | MATTHEW SCULLY

[G.Mason]

October 14, 2005

Op-Ed Contributor

The Harriet Miers I Know

By MATTHEW SCULLY

Los Angeles

WHITE House speechwriters first learned the name Harriet Miers in January 2001, when drafts started reappearing full of corrections, instructions and particularly annoying requests for factual substantiation. In the campaign, life had been simpler, the editing and fact-checking a little more casual. Now the old ways wouldn't do anymore because "Harriet said" this or "Harriet said" that. Who was this woman, and could the staff secretary please confine herself to secretarial duties?

We had a few things to learn about the job of the staff secretary - the person who controls all paper passing through the Oval Office - and above all about the caliber of the woman behind the editing. And now that fellow conservatives in Washington are asking variations of the same question about President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court - Who is this "crony," "cipher," "hack," "functionary" or, as my former speechwriting colleague David Frum has called her, this "petty bureaucrat"? - I think I can help with the answer.

When you know Harriet Miers, it's funny to think of her as the subject of such controversy. Yet already her notoriety is such that even the most innocent of virtues can be thrown back at her as inadequate - "not even second-rate," as a National Review Online posting said, "but third-rate." She's a detail person. Diligent and dependable. Honest, kind, modest, devout and all that. A real mediocrity.

[pgkdan]

I'm with you...have they forgotten 2 plus years of judicial filibuster and the betrayal of the gang of 14? I would love to see Janice Rogers Brown or Michael Luttig on the high court but who knows if we'd ever be able to get them confirmed? And I have no idea if Harriet Miers is qualified...but I'm willing to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt and wait to see what she says in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee.

[Blessed]

>Whether I know squat/diddly about the cleaning lady is less important than that Bush is guilty of cronyism on this most important matter<

Actually it indicates 2 things about you.Your priorities are out of order.You place more importance on tasks a computer can perform than you do humanity.(effective constitutionalist advocate/scholar/jurist".)As the Bible says "Mar 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Mar 8:37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

You are just parroting a bunch of entertainers masquerading as constitutional scholars as evidenced by your use of the charge "Bush is guilty of cronyism ".I suspect you have no idea what a legal scholar is other than what you have heard entertainers like Rush and Arriana Coulter say.

[G.Mason]

"...have they forgotten 2 plus years of judicial filibuster and the betrayal of the gang of 14? ... "

Some have forgotten something, or the noun reality needs a new definition.

The MSM is in the act of counting votes, both for, and against Ms Miers, as we speak. Do any of those opining, think that the Whitehouse is that naive not to have polled their people?

Are there so many "conservatives" brainwashed by this repugnant, third party, MSM, and other less repugnant pundits, that they believe that GWB is actually that intellectually challenged, or dishonest that he would say ... To hell with it, anybody will do? That he didn't think long and hard on this, that he doesn't have a plan, he is just winging it?

If I may, I will answer my own feeble question.

The answer is yes.

[G.Mason]

"Arriana Coulter"

OUCH!

Beautiful. ;)

[onyx]

Ariana Coulter.





ROTFLOL!

[Howlin]

ROFLMAO!

WHACK!

[FastCoyote]

"You place more importance on tasks a computer can perform than you do humanity.(effective constitutionalist advocate/scholar/jurist".)"

I have yet to meet anyone who believes a computer can be a judge. However, plenty of Marxists and religious cultists believe the constitution is whatever they think it is, because they believe in humanity (lie you). The reason strict interpretation of the constitution is imperative is (among other things) to protect religious freedoms, it is a binding contract. Or does the religious cult you belong to not believe in binding contracts? Would you like your home mortgage contract to be maleable, depending on what the bank's religious persuasion was? (Perhaps you'd like to tithe to the church of Baal?) I think you wouldn't, proving your lack of comprehension of basic concepts of contracts (I guarantee the Bible doesn't believe you should lie or steal, which is what abrogation of a contract is).



"As the Bible says "Mar 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Mar 8:37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"

Jesus also spoke about false prophets, those who would misquote the Bible for their own petty purposes. Would you be one of those false prophets?

"You are just parroting a bunch of entertainers masquerading as constitutional scholars as evidenced by your use of the charge "Bush is guilty of cronyism "."

And who are you parroting? A bunch of holy rollers masquerading as constitutional scholars, as evidenced by your false quotation of the Bible? Did God appoint you saint? Are you the definitive source on religious interpretations of the constitution? Yikes, you are over the edge.


"I suspect you have no idea what a legal scholar is other than what you have heard entertainers like Rush and Arriana Coulter say."

Like anyone believes Harriet Miers is a noted legal scholar. Even you aren't THAT dumb. Or maybe you will prove me wrong.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

With all due respect, she may be a Godly woman, and have exemplary character, but that doesn't make her worthy of sitting on the Supreme Court.

Nearly every conservative pundit, legal scholar, and political activist is in agreement that Janice Rodgers-Brown was the single best choice that President Bush could have made, under optimal circumstances.

If you could have theoretically eliminated every Democrat and liberal Republican from the United States Senate, and assured her expedited confirmation, I don't think that there is one person here who would have opposed it.

She garnered support from traditionalists, libertarians, Objectivists, fiscal conservatives, federalists, conservative legal scholars, and united nearly every disparate strand of right-wing thought in almost total unanimity.

Whenever you ask someone-anyone-who would have been a preferable choice, they immediately reply-without a moment's hesistation-"Janice Rodgers-Brown.

She would have been the female counterpart to Clarence Thomas, and provoked a debate between the school of original intent and the Constitution in Exile movement, which is the only debate that should be occurring, with regard to the future of American Con. law.

To say that Miers even approaches the level of a Janice-Rodgers Brown is so utterly meritless that it strains credulity.

[GarySpFc]

Oh! Here is an email which was sent to Hugh Hewit today.

Mr. Hewitt:

I am a practicing commercial litigator who thus far supports the nominee (although I am reserving final judgment until the hearings). I am also flummoxed by the rush among the Washington DC Conservative Establishment both to condemn this nomination and to dictate to the President of the United States that he must chose a nominee from a list of "pre-approved" names of probably 20 or so acceptable jurists.

Just for fun, I compared Miers' qualifications with that of another potential nominee, Judge Edith Brown Clement on the 5th Circuit, and found them to be very similar -- almost eerily similar. Actually, I would say "Creepy Similar." Like, "These Two Could Be Twins" similar.

By way of background, Judge Clement was one of the judges that Peggy Noonan described in her WS Journal article as being an acceptable alternative to Miers. Others have dropped her name as well (according to Mona Charen's most recent article, David Frum also cited her as a good choice, but I could not confirm this independently). Also, Clement was leaked as the early pick for the seat that ultimately went to Roberts. Based on the fact that Miers lead the search, I am not surprised that, considering their similarities in age and experience, Clement rose to the top of the list. (There's a scoop there for someone to follow and report on!)

Consider the following:

1. Both Miers and Clement went to regional Southern schools -- well respected locally, but without real national profile. (Clement: B.A. Univ of Alabama '69 and J.D. Tulane Law '73; Miers B.S. SMU '67 and J.D. SMU Law '70). I know Miers was Law Review, honors, etc, and I assume Clement was as well.

2. Both clerked for federal district court judges in the South in the early '70s (trial court judges, not the typical federal appellate clerkships for SCOTUS nominees). Clement clerked for Judge Christenberry, E.D. La. from 1973-75; Miers clerked for Judge Estes, N.D. Tex. from 1970-72.

3. Both enjoyed long, successful careers in large Southern law firms. From 1975 to 1991, Clement practiced principally maritime litigation at Jones Walker -- a well respected firm of about 200 lawyers with offices throughout Louisiana (Baton Rouge, New Orleans) and in Texas (mainly Houston). From 1972 through 1996, Miers practiced commercial and business litigation with Locke Purnell -- again, a well respected firm of about 200 lawyers with offices throughout north Texas (Austin, Fort Worth, Dallas).

4. In the early to mid 1990s, both obtained some of the highest levels of success in their profession. In 1991, Bush I appointed Clement to a district court judge position in the E. D. La. (the same place she clerked almost 20 years prior). Miers did not receive a trial court appointment, but in 1992 was elected President of the State Bar of Texas (she was President of the Dallas State Bar in '84). In 1996, Miers' partners voted her president of Locke Purnell. Locke Purnell then merged with another large Texas firm (based in Houston), became Locke Liddell, and Miers was elected co-managing partner of this new firm by her new and old partners -- the firm was by then one of the largest in Texas. This type of prominent position gave Miers access to very important people, and Miers impressed the newly elected Governor and received some legal appointments that sound a little silly now (counsel to gubernatorial transition team, Lottery Commission chair, etc).

5. In 2001, Bush appointed Clement to a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and she was confirmed immediately 99-0 (not considered too controversial). Miers, however, went with Bush to DC and moved from WH staff secretary to WH deputy chief of staff to WH counsel -- all assistant to pres/ policy positions. (Note: I am tired of people describing staff secretary as a "paper shuffling" position -- the position is currently held by Brett Kavanaugh, a lawyer who is a former Supreme Court clerk, a Ken Starr protégé, and a Presidential nominee for a seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The fact that Miers has been dismissed as a "secretary" is the one place where I would say sexism has entered this debate. Nobody has ever dismissed Kavanaugh as a secretary.)

Considering their similarities in age and background, it does not surprise me one bit that Clement rose to the top of Miers' list. In fact, it actually surprises me a lot that Clement did not get the first SCOTUS nod (according to a Wash Post story, Clement came pretty close, but she and Bush did not hit it off in the interview whereas Bush and Roberts did). But I think this demonstrates pretty clearly that Miers possesses almost identical qualifications as Clement. But Clement is being suggested as an alternative by the same people who are suggesting that Miers is unqualified?

In fact, I would go one better -- I have, in my law practice, encountered some federal trial judges in some rural areas who are pretty dense (I'm not speaking of Clement -- I don't know her at all). But I have never, ever met a managing partner of a firm the size of Locke Liddell that I did not consider to be real bright. DC folk may not see this, but I am convinced that Bush sees Miers as an extremely successful Texas lawyer who is comparable or even interchangeable experientially with someone like Clement. (Or, for that matter, other "big firm Texas types" like Priscilla Owens who received her J.D. from Baylor in '77 before spending 17 years at Andrews & Kurth or Gonzalez who spent 12 years at Vinson & Elkins (he did go to Harvard)).

I bet Bush is hearing about this bugaboo from others, turning to Laura and saying -- what's the fuss?

I think two things are going on here. First, some independent minded/ con law bloggers (like Glen Reynolds) really want a SCOTUS nominee who is a "public intellectual" -- Professor/Judge McConnell is probably the most mentioned and I really cannot think of another on the radar (Posner?). There aren't many. Second, most prominent conservative opinion writers -- people who spent their whole lives writing opinions in and out of government -- want a judge who has spent his or her whole life writing opinions in and out of government. Luttig, Wilkinson, Rogers Brown all fit this mold. There's a fair amount of "self identification as qualification" going on here.

Me, I am a practitioner and I want someone who has practiced for a long time, and who has achieved the highest level of success in practice. I would be fine with Clement or Owens, but the President decided Miers was his pick and I really cannot quibble. He makes judgment calls on jurisprudence and temperament (subject to consent of the Senate), not me -- if there's any place he's earned my trust, it's on this.

If Miers was denied confirmation in place of someone in the "public intellectual/ judge for life" mold it is quite possible that for the first time in this nation's history the Supreme Court of the United States would consist of no one who has either (a) tried a case or (b) spent a significant portion of his or her life not in academia, in government or on the bench (with the exception of the 10 year appellate practice that C.J. Roberts engaged in). I do not think that would be a good thing.

In any event, I enjoy your analysis and, again, feel free to use as much of this as you deem appropriate. I do think the comparison between the careers of Miers and Clement is an original take and is worth posting.

Regards,

--Bob

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Thanks.

See, the Clement comparison is very apt.

Mark Levin came out after John Roberts was selected (originally) to fill the O'Connor seat and stated-rather unambiguously-that he would have opposed a Clement selection, for the very same reasons that so many conservatives now oppose Miers, i.e. she is a possible O'Connor, or even worse, Souter or Stevens.

I don't see how anyone can be intellectually consistent when they say Clement carried a presumption of guilt, whereas Miers should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I would have been willing to give Judge Clement the opportunity to explain herself during any confirmation hearings-even though I believe these things are a pro forma exercise in self-aggrandizement, pomposity and evasion-but I can not extend the same deference to Miers.

It's impossible.

[bray]

She's a Heretic...Burn Her!!

Pray for W and Harriet Miers

[Dolphy]

And what are a bunch of FReepers saying?

"Character doesn't count!"

So much is being said, isn't it? I read the conservative pundits charges of Miers mediocrity and wonder what it says of their ability to judge or even value, judicial temperament? I wonder what it says of those who gleefully post these thoughts not even recognizing that they have no standing in the author's world. I wonder what is says of the Senators who are lukewarm in their reactions? These are the same ones who failed to mount any effective campaign as nominee after nominee were filibustered. And finally I wonder about all of the constitutional experts here who are so insulted by the President's "trust me." Do they really expect any of us to believe that they carefully studied Luttig, Brown, Owens, etc. body of writings and opinions and independently judged their fitness? Or did they rely on the Coulter's, Kristol's and the rest "trust me?"

The only one I don't wonder about is the President. He is a man of his word and a man of loyalty...he knows what he campaigned on and what he promised.

[BibChr]

Those are really excellent points. I hadn't thought of it that way -- and I've thought a lot about it! Thank you.

Dan

[Miss Marple]

Dolphy, what an excellent comment! I really have nothing more to say on this issue. I think that the fighting is counter-productive, so I have pretty much decided to let those threads go. Maybe when the same 5 people are all talking amongst themselves, they will move on to another subject.

My position hasn't changed. I want to hear Harriet Miers. I am not willing to trash her and the President based on rumors and sniping from the pundits. I also do not want her name withdrawn; she deserves an up or down vote.

The President has never lied to me. I paid attention to what he said during his initial presidential campaign, because I didn't know much about him. I voted for him knowing full well there would be an education program (which I wasn't wild about) and a prescription drug program for the elderly. ANyone who acts like those programs are betrayals is either lying or paid zero attention during the campaigns.

As he has kept both large and small promises througout his administration, he has consistently appointed excellent judges. Because he has kept his promises, and because he has never lied, I am willing to trust him until I hear Harriet Miers. If by chance the President has made an error, and she is a lightweight or weird in her judicial philosophy, I will suggest my senators vote against her.

I am waiting for the hearings, and I refuse to participate in the tearing down of a man who has led us with honesty and honor, and has done so despite having more on his plate than any president in my lifetime. The pundits' actions are shameful, and they have lost me as one who thinks them serious commentators.

[Dolphy]

Thank you, Miss Marple. I could have used an editor though...I guess that's what happens when one is both sleepy and furstrated :)

I agree with you though, I too am waiting for the hearings. And I especially agree with you on the education and prescription drug programs. (I happened to agree with him on the education issue, if not necessarily the final bill.) Anyone who, as you suggest, was paying attention, cannot be surprised or betrayed. I wonder who it is that they supported in the 2000 election. Worse, I wonder where the path of destruction, led by multiple time electoral losers like Kristol and Buchanan is leading.

[onyx]

It bears repeating:

The reactionaries' favorite short list are all judges President George W. Bush appointed to the appellate bench.

58 posted on 10/15/2005 11:17:57 AM CDT by Wolfstar (The reactionaries' favorite short list are all judges GWB appointed to the appellate bench.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[BibChr]

...I wonder about all of the constitutional experts here who are so insulted by the President's "trust me." Do they really expect any of us to believe that they carefully studied Luttig, Brown, Owens, etc. body of writings and opinions and independently judged their fitness? Or did they rely on the Coulter's, Kristol's and the rest "trust me?"

That was such a good point, and so stuck in my mind, that I added it as an update to my blog's post.

Dan
Biblical Christianity BLOG

[Dolphy]

Hey thanks, I'm flattered.