Miers Hit on Letters and the Law ("Writings Both Personal and Official Have Critics Poking Fun")

Washington Post ^ | 10/15/2005 | Charles Babington

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

*groan*

[Gianni]

And for the people making the "mediocre people deserve representation too" argument

Who is convinced by that argument? It's certainly one of the strangest approaches to garnering support that I've ever seen.

[AmericaUnited]

That's what smart, brilliant, well educated, stunningly written and eminently qualified has produced as far as I can understand.

Well said. You truly do 'get it'. And that's why this article from the Compost and these petty' criticisms are such a joke. People's priorities are twisted and confused.

[Zechariah11]

I have changed my mind on her and hope that the nomination is removed.

[Doohickey]

This woman can do nothing wrong in your eyes, can she? If she streaked the South Lawn you'd say "she's in really good shape for her age!"

[Zechariah11]

I think we have to begin hoping that the nomination is recalled before this gets any uglier. What was he thinking?

[Racehorse]

studied it under John Whyte at William and Mary (Jefferson's law professor),

Marshall did that.  Consisted of attending a few lectures over the course of one year.  Marshall also spent some little time serving as a Judge Advocate for the Continental Army.

Other than that, you'd have to say by education and experience, Miers' qualifications outshine Marshall's.

But then like now, there were no perquisites for being a Supreme Court Justices, only preferences, a nomination, and confirmation.

[born in the Bronx]

Where a SCJ is concerned,its a very big deal. Lawyers will make arguments, and judges will make decisions, based on what she wrote, not what she thought.

[AmericaUnited]

No, that's not true at all. But I do think she is being incredibly, unfairly maligned. This reminds me of all of the articles and 'proofs' by the Compost and NYSlimes of how 'stupid' Reagan was. To them, Jimmy Carter was smart, Bush was stupid, Kerry and Gore were geniuses. And then we have dimwits on our side who fall for this.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Senator Hruska.

:_)

[AmericaUnited]

Lawyers will make arguments, and judges will make decisions, based on what she wrote, not what she thought.

As was noted several times earlier, there is a whole host of characters and processes that make sure the 'final written product', reflects what the justice was thinking. So, this is a non-starter as a concern.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

[GarySpFc]

You are the guy who tried to tell us that Miers was as qualified as John Marshall when he took the job, until I pointed out that Marshall did not just study law for a little bit, but studied it under John Whyte at William and Mary (Jefferson's law professor), and that by the time he was appointed to the Supreme Court, he was a hero of the revolution, had established a sound law career and was a leading elected and appointed member of our newly formed republic.

Wrong! I was simply pointing out that neither had prior judicial experience, and that Marshall had less than one year of legal training.

[Sunnyflorida]

"Big deal. I know people who are absolutely brilliant thinkers and yet can't write. I know a few fantastic writers who are dumber than rocks."

Ditto.

I read well articulated, well argued, deeply researched balderdash every day. Pick up any wall street analyst stock report.

[JCEccles]

Combined with columns she wrote for an in-house publication while president of the Texas Bar Association -- critics have called them clumsily worded and empty of content -- Miers may be at risk of flunking the writing portion of the Supreme Court confirmation test, according to some opponents.

Some us here at Free Republic were pointing this out almost a full two weeks ago.

[AndyJackson]

I know that subtle distinctions, such as Hero of the Revolution vs fawning mediocrity are beyond you, but you don't need to harp on about it.

[ontos-on]

First, those articles are set pieces for a small, specialized audience. It required no more effort than she gave to them. There was probably no editorial staff and the only review was done by printer.

The above highlights what is wrong with this nomination. The inability to write clearly indicates an inability to think clearly and not get snowed by irrelevant material. This point is especially true in appellate legal work where there are an abundance of strong competing arguments working their persuasive power by various mixtures of the facts and precedental law. An appellate justice cannot be a poor writer and rely on his clerks to tighten things up. Clarity and precision of thinking and writing go together at this level. The ability to penetrate the various arguments is essential.

To claim that we need not worry because she will be results oriented and will vote the "right" way, is an error. She lacks principles which matter to her so "on the Court" she will be adrift and available to be captured by apparently persuasive arguments which are pitched to her prejudices and assumptions.

This is precisely what happened to O'Connor. The left's praise of her was precisely pitched to her vulnerability. Miers is a terrible choice and George Bush is not well equipped to perceive this.

[AndyJackson]

I do think she is being incredibly, unfairly maligned

It is a pity. She is probably a good person. But, she allowed herself to be nominated.

[JCEccles]

Yawn...Big deal. I know people who are absolutely brilliant thinkers and yet can't write.

Do you also know some brilliant pilots who can't fly, or some magnificent chefs who can't cook?

[handy]

Yawn...Big deal. I know people who are absolutely brilliant thinkers and yet can't write. I know a few fantastic writers who are dumber than rocks.

Yeah, but for a spot on the SCOTUS we should look for someone is both a great writer and a brilliant thinker.