Posted on 10/15/2005 11:22:42 AM PDT by gobucks
By the time Senate hearings start in late October or early November, Miers will have completed a crash course in constitutional law.
White House officials and others who are familiar with her preparations said she'd paid little attention to the furor over her nomination while concentrating on the task at hand. They dismissed speculation that she might heed calls from some conservatives for her withdrawal.
Supporters expressed confidence that Miers' appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee will quiet critics who question her qualifications for the nation's highest court. But they acknowledged that any embarrassing mistakes by the nominee could doom her chances.
"One thing that characterizes Harriet is that she is extremely diligent. She's going to be prepared," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a committee member. "The temptation will be great for some to try to match wits with her on constitutional issues. There's some danger that senators might demonstrate not her lack of knowledge, but their own."
snip
Although Miers is still in the early stages of her preparation, plans call for her to participate in question-and-answer sessions with top constitutional lawyers after she digests the briefing books. Those informal sessions will evolve into more formal "murder boards," relentless grillings that more closely resemble confirmation hearings.
Roberts wasn't videotaped during his practice sessions, but Miers might be. Some White House officials worry that her quiet, low-key approach may need to be pumped up for television.
Snip
"A good performance by her in the hearings will seal the deal," said Washington lawyer Christopher Bartolomucci, another participant in Roberts' preparation.
By all accounts, Miers is well aware of the stakes.
"She knows the hearings are an important part of the process," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "She'll be ready."
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
In a nutshell, Thomas shows me evidence of a wide-ranging, expansive mind, familiar with natural law theory and some of the big ideas that lie behind our constitution. Miers shows me that she can marshall teams of researchers and lawyers and write a good brief. Thomas writes with elegance, clarity, and humor. Miers writes in a pedestrian style. Thomas went to Georgetown and Yale, where he managed to filter out all the politically correct garbage he was fed there and came out with what is clearly a well-rounded education. Miers went to SMU (the ONLY time I have mentioned this point) and pretty much sucked up what was given to her.
Those are my conclusions after studying both these people and reading some of their writings. I can't PROVE it to you, because it's the summary of opinions of the two based on a great deal of disparate evidence.
As I've said before, I supported Thomas when he was nominated, and thought he was terrific. I don't get that from Miers.
I was taken aback by this nomination when it was announced, because Miers was an unknown and a number of very well known, stellar candidates were passed over. I withheld judgment on Miers into I looked into her. I have not seen anything to suggest that she should have been shoved in ahead of many who are far better qualified and more reliable in their views.
True, but her career has involved little to no experience in constitutional law. I'm sure she could lawyer circles around Roberts in corporate or contract law, but that's not the kind of law relevant to the vast majority of cases a SCOTUS judge is asked to decide.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not she is qualified, it is truly ridiculous that a candidate for the highest court in the land should have to hone her television presentation skills as if she were a model or an actress.
Which, to judge by trends, will be the moment after Harriet Miers is sworn in.
It does highlight the superficiality of the process - how many Senators are going to bother to poll television land on this matter?
If a pedestrian style will do to communicate the words that will save tens of thousands of unborn babies every year, I will have nothing to say about that but YOU ROCK HARRIET!
"How many others could the President have nominated[or appointed] that wouldn't need a crash course in the CONSTITUTION?"
234! All appointed and nominated solid conservative Judges that I have yet to hear one disparaging comment concerning...save this one!
hmmm
Thanks for that.
In reality, sycophantic followers lead to the downfall of their leader by never calling attention to his mistakes. The true essence of loyalty is the ability to stand up to your leaders and say "you're wrong on this". Questioning a decision isn't disloyal; it's one of the most loyal acts a person can undertake. Disagreeing with the leader of the party isn't a blind, lemming-like behavior, in spite of the projecting you'll see in pro-Miers posts here. It's the followers, who are saying "shhh... sure she's not the best choice, but let's not tell him that!" who are "baaa-ing" their way over the edge.
The failure to understand that challenging bad decisions by our own party is true loyalty while spinelessly capitulating to bad decisions is political suicide is, well, frightening to me. Failure to understand that abandoning principle for party is simply reprehensible saddens me in a way Tom Daschle always pretended he meant. Have we turned into lefists-lite? Are we turning into the party of "who cares whether it's a good decision or not? It's what we mean by it."?
Never, ever forget that questioning the President's nomination is not disloyal. It is not the same as having turned on the President. I can't speak for others, but I can say that I loathe this nomination, but I still support my President. I support him on about 98.9% of the things he does. Just not this.
Now you want to really hear hatred? Go back and read the Pro-Miers posts "refuting" (and I use that term lightly) the anti-Miers opinions. The desperation in their tone is so thick it could choke a mule. Anti-BushBots, sexist, elitist, snobs... but never anything to support her record. Just "trust me" and ad hominum attacks. I started out pretty much in wait-and-see mode on her nomination. Through what I've read on her background, the pundits I've read, etc., I was still in wait-and-see mode, although slightly leaning against. After the vitriol I've read on here from the Pro-Miers crowd, almost none of which has any fact to back it up, I'm now firmly against her nomination. Will I alone make a difference in the outcome? Of course not. But my voice is added to the "withdraw" chorus. Most importantly, it's not there because I dislike the President. It's there precisely because I am as loyal to the President as I can be, and don't want to see him make this sort of easily avoidable mistake.
I hope you're enjoying doing the same thing to Miers that the rats did to Thomas.
Here's another statement by Jim:
It's long been known (and promised) that we were going to send up a conservative (that means pro-life) nominee in the mold of a Scalia. There is absolutely no excuse not to do so now. Who cares how bloody the Senate battles may get. If there's no woman who wants the job, then I'm sure there are plenty of qualified men. Somebody up there really screwed the pooch on this one.
Whoever's advising the president on this needs to grow a bigger pair!!
219 posted on 10/11/2005 9:58:50 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
We just don't know how much of the writing any member of the SCOTUS does either. Each Justice has a team of clerks and secretaries and are a law firm unto themselves. And Justices and their staffs talk to other justices and their staffs.
Many people seem to think that a Justice of the Supreme Court sits up of an evening writing opinions with a quill under the flickering light of a whale oil lamp.
Once this fight is done, there is no "back to supporting the President" because we never left.
"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society. If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong, and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution."
My choice would have been Michael Luttig. One problem. I'm not the President. Bush is POTUS and he has a good track record with his past nominees to the SCOTUS.
I don't doubt that she can successfully complete a rash course in Constitutional Law. Those of use who went to law school know that all you need is a casebook, some summary's, and an outline. Senators will have little success quizzing her about obscure cases in an effort to trip her up. What she cannot do is come up with a coherent Constitutional interprative philosphy if she does not already have one. However, I don't know if the Senators on the Judiciary have the level of knowledge that would be required to vet out such information.
"Bush is POTUS and he has a good track record with his past nominees to the federal courts."
Sure there is. It's called consent of the Senate. As Hamilton pointed out in the Federalist Papers, the whole purpose of this requirement was to ensure that President would appoint qualified individuals, not cronies.
234! All appointed and nominated solid conservative Judges that I have yet to hear one disparaging comment concerning...save this one!
I hope you're enjoying doing the same thing to Miers that the rats did to Thomas.
You say "rash course" and "those of use" and you say Miers is not "coherent"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.