Posted on 10/15/2005 2:37:57 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Supreme Court confirmation battles usually involve excavations of the nominee's judicial opinions, legal briefs and decades-old government memos. Harriet Miers is the first nominee to hit trouble because of thank-you letters.
Miers's paper trail may be relatively short, but it makes plain that her climb through Texas legal circles and into George W. Bush's inner circle was aided by a penchant for cheerful personal notes. Years later, even some of her supporters are cringing -- and her opponents are viciously making merry -- at the public disclosure of this correspondence and other writings from the 1990s.
Bush may have enjoyed being told by Miers in 1997, "You are the best governor ever -- deserving of great respect." But in 2005 such fawning remarks are contributing to suspicion among Bush's conservative allies and others that she was selected more for personal loyalty than her legal heft.
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.
"The tipping point in Washington is when you go from being a subject of caricature to the subject of laughter," said Bruce Fein, a Miers critic who served in the Reagan administration's Justice Department and who often speaks on constitutional law. "She's in danger of becoming the subject of laughter."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
*groan*
Who is convinced by that argument? It's certainly one of the strangest approaches to garnering support that I've ever seen.
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.
I have changed my mind on her and hope that the nomination is removed.
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!"
I think we have to begin hoping that the nomination is recalled before this gets any uglier. What was he thinking?
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.
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.
:_)
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.
"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.
Some us here at Free Republic were pointing this out almost a full two weeks ago.
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.
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.
It is a pity. She is probably a good person. But, she allowed herself to be nominated.
Do you also know some brilliant pilots who can't fly, or some magnificent chefs who can't cook?
Yeah, but for a spot on the SCOTUS we should look for someone is both a great writer and a brilliant thinker.
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.