Yesterday, when I read Brooks' article, I thought it was a big deal. A very big deal.
Then, I remembered something rather important.
First, those articles are set pieces for a small, specialized audience. It required no more effort than she gave to them. There was probably no editorial staff and the only review was done by printer.
Second, SC opinions are not set pieces. The drafts are reviewed, edited, re-edited, circulated among the Justices, discussed, and edited again and again until the meaning of the text matches the Justice's intent.
The criticism is bogus. I should have realized that straight away.
What evidence is there to indicate that she modifies the quality or style of her writing for different audiences?
Exactly!!!
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.
thank you.... for the "conservatives" that have their knickers in a knot....
take a little 3-4 mile jog out in the Texas brush.
Think of Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Kennedy doing that...
Do you think of any of the aforementioned holding a .45 and putting a couple of rounds down range... not a .38 or .380.
She's a "convert" to Christianity. That means she made a "choice" to do so while working in a snake pit that is called the Texas legal system.
Finally, George Bush knows his "friends".... not like Clinton "knew" Lewinsky et al.. but probably knows her tendencies. For those that are blowing smoke about the other "choices" that he might have had..... unless your up in the administration food chain.... you're blowing smoke and don't know cr@p about any of the choices other than what you've read or heard about. I'm almost positive that George Bush has the same info that you all have.... just maybe a little more.
When critics and skeptics hounded Rumsfeld, he stuck by him. When critics and skeptics hounded Rove, he stuck by him. Same with K. Hughes and enumerable other advisers and aides. Bush doesn't give a damn what the libs say, what the WashingtonpostNewyorktimesaljazeeraLosangelestimesNewsweekPeople magazine/poll/survey/television news/cable news thinks about his choice. He made it knowing what he wants and putting it out there for the Senate to vote up or down. I'm thinking this lady is going to be a Texas Ball Buster and the ones that think she's going to be a wimpy self absorbed liberal turncoat are going to be eating crow.
Since when has Bush not kept his word on his appointments or commitments? I don't agree with his border policy, the lack of fight over more tax cuts and the actual cutting of funding to PBS and other liberal quasi governmental agencies.... but all in all, I trust the guy.