If you haven't already, click on the link and read the last few paragraphs of this story. It's not just her writing style that's disturbing.
It just doesn't add up.
Fein said he is more concerned about Miers's legal thinking than her syntax, especially as outlined in her three-page letter to then-Gov.Bush on June 11, 1995, when she was the former state bar president. The letter implored Bush to veto a bill moving through the Democratic-controlled legislature that would have prevented the state Supreme Court from capping lawyers' fees.
"This proposed law does violence to the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branch of our State's government and constitutes an assault upon the powers of the Supreme Court" just as it had fallen into "Republican hands for the first time," Miers wrote.
Fein said it is outrageous to invoke separation-of-powers arguments when a legislature -- wisely or not -- tries to foster free enterprise. By citing the GOP's new control of the Texas Supreme Court, he said, Miers seemed to be seeking a partisan outcome on shaky constitutional grounds.
Not like Att'y Fein doesn't have a dog in a fee-capping fight.
From the info in the article, it seems to me that the legislature attempting to limit the SC powers and any attempts by the SC to tinker w/ legal fees (as in a 'cap') would both be on shakey constitutional ground--i.e., that both scenarios constitute overreaching.
To expand--isn't what the legislature was trying to do rather like the legislature passing a law & attaching a rider that says the law is immune from review by the courts? Or at least be setting a precedent that could be used in such an argument?
OTOH, I suppose that the SC could strike down the law and then the tussle would likely move to the federal courts.
In any case, I don't have a problem seeing this as a separation of powers issue.