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.
I appreciate your post and your comments. Judicial clerks, law clerks, clerks, whatever you want or don't want, that's okay with me. If you have not known at least a few highly educated people who began their professional work performing drudge work for someone, I'd say that was remarkable. I wasn't talking about cleaning out horse sheds. :-)
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 agree. Completely. Absolutely.
The point I tried to make was even should Miers be the hack some claim her to be, the process of producing an opinion will correct her weaknesses or at least mitigate them. Nothing more.