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 ...
No. That is not what I meant. And had you bothered to read the link I gave you, you would know that.
We expect the nominees toanswer questions and give opinions are constitutional cases of distinction that have already been decided.
I have already advised Lieberman and Dodd of my opinion in that area. However, they stopped taking my advice years ago.
That would be futile. It was decided by the Senate during the Souter confirmation.
No, this is a debate over whether we have reached the point that an avowed, proven originalist jurist can win confirmation to this seat.
I am as sad as the many conservative jurists and political activists who argue the fight should be made. However I am not letting my feelings overtake my good sense.
BTW: it's not funny to see the liberals protected from being "Soutered" by a stealth nominee (which is what is going on- and the liberals know it) by conservatives!
Not at all. SOCTUS is not a literature club. The most fundamental for a Supreme Court justice is how to interpret the Constitution, stay an originalist, and most importantly vote according to the what the Constitution says.
I can only pray that, should this nominee make it to the hearings, that the substantial questions that have been asked and unanswered since day 1 are actually posed to her. Knowing this Senate I have zero confidence that will happen - thus waiting for the hearings does nothing but burn time.
I count you among those who search for the truth even when we disagree.
That, my friend, is the job of the law clerks. I suspect that, other than Scalia's, 90% of the Supreme Court opinions were written by the justices' law clerks. In that sense hiring skills are much more imperative than writing skills.
Heheheh. We are alike in that regard. Thank you too for the compliment, re: "searching for truth." We are all inthis boat together, and I want nothing but the best for this countery and her people. I am offended by a murky government process on a decision with the gravity that a SCOTUS seating has.
That is what's happening, a 'reverse-Souter'.
The point I was trying to make was that there are two camps arguing, and a third camp watching from the wings. The two camps are within the GOP. One camps says "trust me, we'll knock liberalism back with this pick," and the other camps says, "not so fast." That intramural debate is happening on FR, and it is mighty heated. The GOP and WH are resisting the pressure from "conservatives" (shorthand, I guess, for anti-Miers types, and not meant as anything other than shorthand).
Meanwhile, the partisan GOP/DEM battlefront is quiet. The pro-Miers camps advocates advancing with stealthy ammuntion, a weapon whose power in the battele of ideas and ideals is unknown and untested. We'll get that weapn by the DEMs and Liberals, and they won't know what hit them!
I call BS on that approach, and I am not backing down.
People are DEMANDING that 'they' be given a warm and fuzzy, and if 'they themselves' don't have enough info about a nominee to make an informed decision, BEFORE the Senate hearings, they think (or demand) that the nominee should get pulled. That is just ridiculous! They time for having a direct say was at the voting both. That's the way the Founders 'did the deal'. Live with it.
Okay. I publicly renounce my accusation that your posts are not to be trusted. I have not bothered to collect the evidence for the readers. I apologize to you for making the accusation.
But I stand by my personal approach to your posts. I personally don't trust them. I use the information you provide, and for that I am greatful. Your posts often lead me to information that I would not have otherwise had the benefit of considering.
This brief proves nothing about Miers other than that she was one of Bush's attorneys, a fact that we already knew.
If one looks at the attorneys of record on the cited brief, one finds the following:
Harriet E. Miers
Jerry K. Clements
Roger B. Cowie
E. Lee Parsley
LOCKE LIDDELL & SAPP LLP
For Bush
and
Robin P. Hartmann
Stacy L. Brainin
HAYNES & BOONE LLP
3100 Bank of America Plaza
Dallas, Texas 75202
Telephone: (214) 651-5000
Facsimile: (214) 651.-5940
FOR RICHARD B. CHENEY
Furthermore, if you look at the records of the attorneys at Locke, Liddell, and Sapp you will find that E. Lee Parsley is the one who is the well-known appellate practice attorney with a strong publication record in Texas for appellate practice. Likewise, Cheney's attorneys have impresive credentials.
Did you read the stuff at the link I gave you? The argument there is not based on "pulling" a nomination before hearings.
They time for having a direct say was at the voting both. That's the way the Founders 'did the deal'. Live with it.
No. I am not going to shut up and vote. The time to talk is always open.
Don't bother replying to me. You're in my twit filter.
Bwahahahhahaah!!!
I nominate you for post of the day.
Please consider that the best we can do for this seat is a "reverse-Souter". And, by definition, there will be no evidence that that is what is happening.
And there are many teachers, English or otherwise, who can't think in very complex ways, either.
I have always had a gift for writing, but I suck at math. When I was a child, being good in math was considered the hallmark of a bright student. Writing and language skills were not considered to be worth anything. In fact, where (and when) I went to school, kids who were not good in math were discouraged from applying to college, but were shunted, instead, to trade (boys) or secretarial (girls) schools.
Ms. Miers is older than I am. She was raised in an era when girls were expected to become good wives and mothers. Period. Yet she got a degree in math and a degree in the law while working to help pay for her own education. Degrees in both math and the law indicate that Ms. Miers' IQ scores are well above average.
Teacher Penny, you come across to me just like the closed-minded teachers of my childhood who could not see potential in any kid who was weak in math.
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.