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 ...
That's some amount of grunt work. Appreciate having the benefit of your summaries.
Thank you!
Most helpful to me and hopefully to others.
Let your friend go on public record then, and get back to me when he does. Meanwhile, HM has other problems, such as her obvious difficulty in writing when she is not assisted by staff (and even sometimes when she is, or could be).
Now I hate to be Captain Obvious, but here goes:
She hasn't used deception. Much like Bush, Miers had a mid-life changing experience which resulted in a dramatic about face in her world view. This change was a progression with many credible witnesses. cough-GWB-cough.
Have you known anyone to make a dramatic life change in their 40's which brought about a more Conservative world view? A Constructionist philosophy is a Conservative world view which she proclaims to hold.
Be assured that the Left knows this about H Miers. Who knew they'd have the luxury of having some on the Right do their heavy lifting for them?
The Left is very aware that the Miers vote will be a solide vote for the Right, vs. SDO's unpredictable middle of the road votes.
But shhhhh, it is a "reverse-Souter", but not by deception.
A look into the future writings.
"Dear David (Souter), thanks for lunch you are the best co-worker ever!!! Loved your toughts on international law. What are you doing Saturday night?
Linux would probably be 80% of the market if Microsoft insisted on having such a policy today, even if it were possible.
If he dares to do that, I will vote for Hillery or any other Dem.
That will be the last straw.
I expect my ten year old to write clear sentences with accurate punctuation, grammar, and spelling, even if the content is simple. Shouldn't we have higher standards for a supreme court justice?
Those letters are simply unacceptable. They show someone trying to use big words without checking for more
basic things. They are garbled. You don't have to be an intellectual giant to clearly express an idea.
Wouldn't YOU check and double-check a letter to the governor? This indicates to me that she doesn't KNOW how express an idea clearly, if she even has any. How is she going to convey her meaning to these "brilliant law clerks" everyone keeps nattering about? Or are the law clerks going to be the REAL justice?
Shhhh ... we're sleeping.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502796/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502903/posts?page=175#175 <- et seq
http://rapidshare.de/files/6012929/Jones_v_Bush_-_Bush_and_Cheney_5th_Cir_Brief.zip.html
The WH and Senate have been hoarding the rest, to preserve the steathy nature of the nominee. Instead we are going to be sold with marketing buzzwords like "she will not legislate from the bench," "she believes in and will apply strict construction," " she respects the funders intention for balance of powers," and "trust me, GWB knows waht is in her heart, she is a good person with an accomplished career breaking through the male-dominated leagl field."
The tactic as expressed by some is to "reverse-Souter" the liberal cause. I dsaid it before, and I say it again. I will shun a party that bases advancement of its ideals with the use of an inherently dishonest approach - the avoidance of reasoned dialoge on matters of important principle.
But hey, that's just me. YMMV.
It's the literary equivalent of a chrysanthemum or rose.
A fair question, but a simple yes or no is not enough. To analyse the input, one must also know the grounds for the support.
Law clerks, not just "clerks," help with writing opinions. If they do the "drudge work," then why is a minimum qualification a law degree at a reputable law school?
A SC appointee should be able to write at least as well as the clerks, in any case. He or she will be hiring and supervising those clerks, and will have ultimate responsibility for the opinion that is issued as a result of that supervision.
I don't want a handicapped nominee out the gate. Everything at the SC level rests on the clarity of writing. There do exist people who have great intellectual ability and who can write clearly. If that is not under contention here, then why not nominate one of those well-rounded people to the SC instead of HM? Anyway, the argument that HM's writing abilities do not matter are hobbled from the outset by GWB's claim that she is the most qualified for the job. If she's the most qualified for the job, then the bushbots would not be saddled with making excuses for her left and right as they are here and in countless other threads on FR. Sheesh.
Harriet Meirs-- withdraw your nomination now while you still have your dignity and the president still has his.
Unless they knew each other well, and it was not such a BIG, FORMAL, STINKING DEAL as you, and others, are trying to make out of it.
Keyboard spew alert!!!
;-)
As with O'Connor's nomination they are leap frogging the argument. The chicken hawks do not wish to have a fight. Some of us would prefer to fight rather than switch.
Republican Presidents have given us Brennan, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, O'Conner, Kennedy and Souter, everyone of whom eventually moved left after assuming the post of Supreme Court Justice. I hope I am wrong, but I am prepared to be disappointed about the performance of Miers and Roberts on the Court.
No, she hasn't. And I didn't say she had. I said she has kept her matters of principle close to the vest. I am attaching the label "deception" to the political process set in motion my the President, operating in collaboration with GOP and DEM leadership.
Have you known anyone to make a dramatic life change in their 40's which brought about a more Conservative world view? A Constructionist philosophy is a Conservative world view which she proclaims to hold.
No. Honestly, I don't know of one. I went to law school as an adult after working in a technical field for 20 years. None of the people there changed their world view in a "Constitutional" sense in the years we were there, or since (been about 10 years total by now). It was pretty clear in 1st year which of us preferred Scalia in Roe, and which preferred O'Connor in Planned Parenthood.
As for being reborn into the Christian faith, an ethical lawer will not permit their religious beliefs to intrude into the law, except inso far as the law and the religion overlap anyway. BTW, if you haven't, do read Blackstone's "OF THE NATURE OF LAWS IN GENERAL" for an idea of how law and religion can "peacefully coexist."
If the argument is to be that a religious rebirth will cause her to be a judicial activist, because her decisions will be outcome oriented based on her faith, then I recoil from the nominee with even more vigour. And I am a mighty faithful Christian.
But shhhhh, it is a "reverse-Souter", but not by deception.
Please do share the material that illuminates her judicial philosophy. Otherwise, your pitch is just another flavor of "trust me."
Funny, I missed the part where Ms Meiers has served as a federal judge and an appeals court judge, but I guess I am blind. Other than that, and that Ms Clement writes clear opinions, I guess they are the same.
Sigh.
:) ok... but your point was very interesting, because I meant what I said and I would love to know my 'score.' :)
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.