Thats funny I have noticed the exact same thing and I have a perfect example of it.
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.
That is intellectual dishonesty writ large. In a thread supposedly based on her legal writings, but instead focusing on no such thing, don't you think it would move the debate forward if you offered up the brief she wrote in Jones v Bush rather than castigating others for, IYO, not moving the debate forward?
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.
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:And objective readers will decide, jwalsh07, whether you are being more forthcoming and honest, or if I am. That is objective reality.
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").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.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.
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.
Thatnks though, for adding her applellate work on that brief to this mix, it is a useful addition.