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

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

[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."

[LibLieSlayer]

"His judgment is called into question when he presumes that his intuition will be able to guide him when it is applied to an area, appellate court judges, in which he is not himself experienced or well-versed."

Well you presume that is how he handled this appointment. Maybe it was, but his track record as a two time Governor of the great state of Texas, as well as a two term President would seem to point to the fact that he knows how to be an excellent executive. The Framers set our government up so that it is ONLY the President that is entrusted with appointing federal officers. Even "if" the Senate approves a Justice, the person approved is not automatically made a justice, as the President then has to sign them into their position. This is because the President is the only person authorized to appoint.

"To the objection that he has made good appellate appointments to this point, I would respond that in all his prior appointments the vetting process was performed by people other than himself and the President only was required to use his judgment and intuition among a pool of superbly qualified people."

Again you presume this to be the case. I think that he probably vetted a large list that was pre-vetted (and this is exactly how it SHOULD be done), but you give this President far too little respect as to his mental abilities, and his absolute dedication to doing what is "right" for this country..

"To the objection that Miers was part of the people assistin in the vetting process and so must be qulified herself, that does not follow and her participation was over a very short period of time. A candidate such as Miers would not have made it to the final pool, to say the least, and the President has erred in allowing his personal feelings to cloud his judgment".

We shall see. I trust the process, and the Constitution (and those that shaped it), in that the hearing process will work as designed. She cannot pass muster in these coming hearings, unless she is qualified (I do not accept that we will learn nothing). If she is shown NOT to be qualified, I doubt that many would lament her recusal. I certainly wish to hear her philosophy from her own mouth. I am not afraid of our system of government, and I have faith that it will work as designed.

The only "cloud" in this matter, is that surrounding whether Meirs is qualified or not. I believe firmly that the President is far too talented and blessed to allow "feelings" alone, to guide his judgement.

LLS

[Racehorse]

It's simply amazing how this female Forrest Gump managed to fool so many people and organizations over such a long period of time.

Read an article yesterday comparing her to Chancey from the movie, Being there.  (Peter Sellers/Shirley Maclaine)  As long as she didn't talk or do anything significant, everyone saw what they most wanted to see.

At the time, I thought that was a cheap and easy shot.  But maybe not.  They just got it a little bit wrong.

Here, it works in reverse.  Her critics and bashers look at her and project what they most want to see.

[miss marmelstein]

"To date, not ONE bright student failed to write coherently, even brilliantly, but, without exception, all of the poor thinkers invariably produced equally poor writing."

Have you ever read F. Scott Fitzgerald's unedited letters and prose? Not exactly Einstein but a BRILLIANT writer.

[Itzlzha]

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.

"You are the best governor ever -- deserving of great respect."

Does THIS exlain the reluctance to join the "Big Gulp" (R)'s?

[LibLieSlayer]

That is yet to be seen. I have registered your opinion, and respect it.

BTW, the border question will be front and center soon. I hope we all work together as a team to see real solutions applied to this problem.

LLS

[thoughtomator]

I read the Jones v. Bush briefs last night. (I've included the link here that you supplied then.)

It's a well-written brief, but she had several other lawyers co-author it, so it is not certain that any of the writing was personally authored by Miers. Even if we could be sure it was penned by Miers, it is at best marginally relevant to the job, and she is merely one of many thousands of lawyers to have written federal appellate briefs. Hell, I've written the bulk of several federal appeals briefs myself, for both petitioners and defendants - in more difficult and relevant (6th Amendment) cases - but no one would seriously suggest that I sit on the high court.

What is missing is some sort of record of her own opinions on Constitutional law. If we had that, then maybe we could know what we were dealing with and debate the merits of that. The best we can do now is debate the merits of a question mark, which doesn't rise to the level of importance of the position.

[YoungBlackRepublican]

Fair or not, late-night comics have picked up the Miers thread. NBC's Jay Leno suggested the court may need "a woman who's had more courtroom experience, like Courtney Love." CBS's David Letterman envisioned Miers exclaiming as she watched the New York Yankees botch a playoff game: "And they call me unqualified?"


You know it's bad when a Supreme Court Nominee ends up as a punch-line for has-been comics.

It's funny sad. I don't seem to remember Roberts being ubiquitously eviscerated for his lack of credentials.

It's like Ann Coulter said: "The only sexism involved in the Miers nomination is the administration's claim that once they decided they wanted a woman, Miers was the best they could do. Let me just say, if the top male lawyer in the country is John Roberts and the top female lawyer is Harriet Miers, we may as well stop allowing girls to go to law school."

[Cboldt]

I know that you know where legal writings of Harriet Miers can be found and yet you have not linked to them in this thread.

And neither have you.

Here is the thread where the subject was discussed, and a link to the briefs themselves.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502796/posts
http://rapidshare.de/files/6012929/Jones_v_Bush_-_Bush_and_Cheney_5th_Cir_Brief.zip.html

Independent readers can go there and make up their own minds. Golly jwalsh07, you could have done that too, to advance your side of the argument. And for the reocrd here, I reproduce an independent opinion that comes from outside of FR.

The trial court easily and properly rejected the plaintiffs' claim. First, the three Texas residents lacked Article III standing to sue:

Because plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a specific and individualized injury from the impending alleged violation of the Twelfth Amendment and are unable to show personal injury through harm done to non-defendant candidates, the court holds that they do not have standing under Article III to bring this suit.

Second, Cheney was an inhabitant of Wyoming, not Texas:

The record shows that Secretary Cheney has both a physical presence within the state of Wyoming and the intent that Wyoming be his place of habitation. It is undisputed that he was born, raised, educated, and married in Wyoming and represented the state as a Member of Congress for six terms. After additional public service, he eventually moved to Dallas, Texas to become the Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton Corporation ("Halliburton").

On or about July 21, 2000 Secretary Cheney declared his intent to return to his home state of Wyoming. On or after that date, and before today, he traveled to Wyoming and registered to vote there, requested withdrawal of his Texas voter registration, voted in Wyoming in two elections, obtained a Wyoming driver's license (which, in turn, resulted in the voiding of his Texas license), and sold his Texas house. He advised the United States Secret Service that his primary residence is his home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and he retired from employment with Halliburton.

The Fifth Circuit then heard a very quick appeal. The district court decision had come out on December 1, 2000, and the Fifth Circuit heard argument and entered a one-line affirmance on December 7th: "All requested relief is DENIED." The plaintiffs filed an emergency petition asking for more time to file a cert petition just a few days before the Texas electors were to meet, but the Supreme Court denied it. A cert petition was eventually filed -- I'm not sure exactly when -- but it was denied after the electors had met on December 18th.

Perhaps Beldar intends his post to be tongue-in-cheek, so maybe I'm just not getting the joke by looking at the merits. If so, my apologies. But I don't think the opinions in this case provide a lot of insight into Miers' skills in constitutional law.

http://volokh.com/posts/1128747628.shtml

And objective readers will decide, jwalsh07, whether you are being more forthcoming and honest, or if I am. That is objective reality.

Thatnks though, for adding her applellate work on that brief to this mix, it is a useful addition.

[ElPatriota]

..We are conservatives. Are RINOs conservative?..

This is TRICK question, right? :)

In all honesty I don't know. I not even know where I fall in, exactly. Certain issues are hot for me, and others, to a lesser degree.

You know I am surprised I have not see - I am sure they exist - one of those questionnaires that would give you a 'score.' Sort of like you 'credit score,' (above 700 very good, over 800, well...:, under 600, hmmmm and so on [smile].

I suppose that even RINOs can be conservative on certain issues but not on most.

I tell you what I am about: from 1 - 10 scale:

Against abortion -10, homosexual shacking up ('union')-10. Love the Flag-10, Support of the Military-10, securing the border - 8, Immigration Reform - 8, Originalist for the supreme court, including a paper trail - 10, Guns - 5 (sorry), having a national ID card - 7, overspending - 6, less government - 6, - Stopping the attack on Christianity (Christmas, an any mention of God) - 10

I guess I don't have to clarify that I am not an 'intellectual,' much less and 'elitist' :), I am just a regular guy. So, I believe I am more of a 'social conservative,' than anything else.

So now that you know my views, where do I fall in? And where does a RINO fall in?

[jwalsh07]

Fein writes that Miers should be ashamed of seeking a partisan outcome when she is a partisan. Logic there is a little shaky.

[Kryptonite]

Fein is an absolute buffoon for criticizing Miers as "outrageous" for relying upon separation of powers to urge a veto. State supreme courts routinely define the ethics of the practice of law, which include the reasonableness of fees. Legislatures have little to no business stepping in and usurping the role of state supreme courts in this regard. There is nothing outrageous about her position.

So instead the Compost throws out a few notes of hers to feed the (so-called conservative) critics. You know, the ones who haven't done a damn thing about the filibusters but now demand that all nominees be known conservatives, instead of stealth conservatives.

I love how this article also uses Brooks to criticize this line: ""More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems."

Replace society with Bush and conditions with requiring only known conservatives be nominated and the line becomes: "More and more, the intractable problem with Bush has one answer: broad-based intolerance of the practice of not nominating known conservatives and a commitment by many to fix problems."

In this context Miers' writing as State Bar President shouldn't sound stupid to the anti-Miers zealots around here but of course it does because they're all running around like chicken little, having done nothing to establish the credibility to demand that only known conservatives be nominated.

[Afronaut]

There is nothing to left to defend in this nomination. Unless you think the preident is our KING.

Bush has become Goofy these days.

[Kryptonite]

Fein's outrageous comment is outrageous. See my previous post.

[Cboldt]

Come on, you're on a thread about a critic who tries to treat her casual writings as professional ones (dishonesty anyone?) and when he can't deride the style of her only professional writing cited makes the absurd criticism that whether the court of the legislature set caps on lawyer fees isn't a separation of powers issue!

Both sides are ridiculous. There are no hard facts to go on. She is truly a stealth nominee.

Actually, it is the "fact finding and rational discussion" side that agrees with your last point. That she truly is a stealth candidate. ANd therein lies the primary and fatal flaw in the nomination.

[jwalsh07]

And neither have you.

I certainly did.

What irks me is the victimhood club which you have seemed to signed unto.

This is a "partisan" ( see Bruce Fein)issue, different parties have different views. So let's just all agree to stop the whining about folks being "partisan". It's getting disgusting.

[adam_az]

"I have lived 63 years, and have the wisdom to discern when someone is filled with hate."

And yet still haven't learned when you're beat.

[AndyJackson]

Instead he makes a self-ridiculing absurd attack upon it's substance.

I know. It is a self-ridiculing absurdity to attack the substance of a document when there is no substance to attack. Instead of asking, absurdly, what was Ms. Miers thinking, the important question is to ask, what was Fein thinking?

[adam_az]

"I have noticed that the "stealth is okay - trust in GWB" camp has been more prolific with misleading posts, than the "fact finding and rational discussion" camp is. I've seen this pattern in other FR "events" as well, and after a day or two of independent study, I have been able to reliably conclude, objectively, which side is being intellectually honest, and which side is playing mind and word games."

You think that's bad, try posting something slightly critical on the "Daily Drivel" threads as I like to call them. Some segment of FR believes that W is one step away from the second coming of their messiah.

[AndyJackson]

Fein writes that Miers should be ashamed of seeking a partisan outcome when she is a partisan. You are putting words in Fein's mouth. That is not his argument at all, and it would do your side a lot of credit to properly understand the argument of your opponents before you criticize it.

[adam_az]

"Some of these people make me laugh, trying to paint this woman as a complete illiterate nincompoop, that can't write, think, or speak beyond a 4th grade level. It's simply amazing how this female Forrest Gump managed to fool so many people and organizations over such a long period of time. HOW DOES SHE DO IT???"

Because they are all illiterate nincompoop bureaucrats who are over their heads, too.