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.
Why the intelligent folks who inhabit FR cannot see this point escapes me.
Great point. Miers chose a wordsmithing profession--wordsmithing of a highly technical and specialized nature.
SCOTUS, especially, is no place for a Hallmark card copywriter or a James Joyce stream-of-consciousness poseur.
All the evidence suggests that Miers is a mediocre legal talent who ascended to the heights of power not on her own ability and effort but but by being at the right place at the right time and by sweet-talking others into lifting her up the ladder.