Miers hitting the books in advance of confirmation hearings (Bork lessons were learned...)

Mercury News ^ | 14 Oct 05 | RON HUTCHESON

[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."

[curiosity]

This isn't about Harriet Miers as much as a piling on because of grievances about a number of issues that have been festering for a long time.

Well, for me, Miers was the straw that broke the camel's back. Previously, I was very unhappy with Bush, but I grit my teeth an supported him because, I thought, at least he'll nominate good judges.

Now I have absolutely no reason to support him. History will not be kind to him or his family, IMHO.

[Reagan Man]

I don't believe the Constitution takes a back seat to the Federalist Papers, or the Anti Federalist Papers for that matter. The Constitution stands alone and should be interpreted with the original intent that the Founders envisioned. If someone wants to read the Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist Papers in order to educate themselves on other writings of the Founding Fathers, I say, have at it. If someone wants to quote from other writings of the Founders in court proceedings, I say, have at it. The fact remains. The Constitution is the main governing document of the USA and should be treated as such.

[curiosity]

I would not support her even if I knew she would just concurr with Thomas and Scalia on every case. For me, at least, ideology is no substitute for competence.

Of course, I would also oppose any highly qualified nominee with Ginsburg's judicial philosophy.

I want someone with both Scalia's philosophy and his qualifications. Given the number of highly qualified conservative jurists Bush has to choose from, this is not asking too much.

For me, competence and philosophy are both necessary. Neither can substitute for the other.

[Map Kernow]

I don't believe the Constitution takes a back seat to the Federalist Papers, or the Anti Federalist Papers for that matter. The Constitution stands alone and should be interpreted with the original intent that the Founders envisioned. If someone wants to read the Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist Papers in order to educate themselves on other writings of the Founding Fathers, I say, have at it.

I'm sorry---I mistook you for someone who knew what the Federalist Papers were. My mistake---sorry for the interruption.

[G.Mason]

"I think it's within reason that the Miersbots like us are right about what Dubya saw in her. He did say constructionist, he did say original intent, in different circumstances but they both represent his own intent. I also think he believes that she NOW holds her Christian faith similarly enough to his own, that she would not be tempted to fall into the errors of the secularists and liberals."

Firstly, and this is not meant as chastisement, I am not a "Miersbot".

That aside, I do believe, in that President Bush was duly elected, and as such, has the right, under the Constitution, to nominate whom he thinks is best to be appointed to the Supreme Court, and that the process, guaranteed under that Constitution, go forward.

Although many here, and in the MSM, have expressed misgivings over this nominee, I, like you, and many others, have less consternation about Ms Miers than I had these several weeks ago.

[jdhljc169]

I've already been corrected and apologized. And I apologize to you too. When I read it, I was actually looking for when he said he was pro-life and skimmed the other part. Simple mistake. Although I'm not so sure Bush hasn't said it somewhere else by the way Gore phrased it.

[AndyJackson]

sorry---I mistook you for someone who knew what the Federalist Papers were

Words fail me.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Niether has Limbaugh, Ingraham, Levin, Krauthammer, Coulter, Malkin and the whole host of other pundits who are against this. They are irrelevant individuals who havent done a damn thing for conservatism. /Sarc

And Mrs. Conservative, Phylis Schlafly, hasn't been relevant in years either...since about January 20, 2000

/dripping sarc

[The Red Zone]

By saying "Miersbot" I am being somewhat sardonic. But I really think with all these kittens getting killed, some puppies ought to go too, capisce?

[The Red Zone]

She doesn't have the edge she once did. I wish she'd go and meet Harriet. They could talk over puppies and kittens and knitting for a couple hours then start chatting law. Then maybe Phyllis would get an accurate idea about what Harriet is about. And if that turns up some true bombshells, and I mean bombshells, not all this chaff that's been flying around in the air, well so be it.

[Reagan Man]

Stop acting like a juvenile. I know what the Federalist Papers are and they're not part of the US Constitution. The FP were written in response to what became known later as, the Anti Federalist Papers. The FP were intended to explain the newly written US Constitution to the residents of New York state in the hope of persuading them to ratify it. The FP are not, I repeat, are not part of the US Constitution. The FP have no power in governing this great nation.

[paulat]

...oh...you are a bad, bad, boy!!! LOLOLOL!!!!!

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

The FP have no power in governing this great nation.

They are useful in determining "original intent" because of who wrote them. And even more useful are the transcripts of the Constitutional debates. Not referring to either is interpreting the Constitution absent "original intent".

[Rokke]

"With that clarification, you may want to reconsider taking back the "liar" label - and stick it back on me. What say you?"

No. You are drawing a line between your expectations and what Bush actually said. I have no reason to doubt you are being honest about your expectations. But I believe your expectations are the result of comments made by people other than Bush. Bush is a man who is consistent to a fault. And he is a man of his word. He has always said the same thing regarding who he would appoint to the bench, and he has consistently lived up to the criteria he has set. People have assumed Miers does not meet the criteria he has stated time and again. They assume she doesn't measure up to a promise they claim he made. But he never made the promise they claim he made, and he clearly states that Miers will measure up to the standard he is clearly on record stating. I know who I believe.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>They are useful in determining "original intent" because of who wrote them. And even more useful are the transcripts of the Constitutional debates. Not referring to either is interpreting the Constitution absent "original intent".

Let me see if I've got this right. If you don't read the Federalist Papers, you don't understand the original intent set forth in the Constitution. That's not true. One doesn't have to read the Federalist Papers to understand the original intent of the Founding Fathers. If that were true and the Federalist Papers were that important, they would have been made part of the Constitution, just as the Bill of Rights were later added on. DYK. The Federalist Papers opposed what later became known as the Bill of Rights. See Federalist #84.

[Cboldt]

No. You are drawing a line between your expectations and what Bush actually said.

I am drawing a line between a verbatim quote (that doesn't exist), and a Bush promise to nominate strict constructionists. As a matter of disambigating "strict constructionist," Bush asserted that the examples of Scalia and Thomas were appropriate.

So, Bush DID promise a strict constructionist, and the benchmarh that I was led to use to disambuiguate the two words "strict constructionist" were Scalia and Thomas.

I am saying Bush "made the promise."

Now, am I a liar, or not? And if I am, please explain. Is it because I have no direct one sentance phrase of Bush on the record? Is that going to be your reason?

[shhrubbery!]

he was a graduate of Yale Law School, which is the most selective law school in the country

Well, it was bandied about at the time --whether true or not-- that Thomas got into Yale only because of affirmative action.

And whatever Thomas's LSAT scores or GPA at Yale were, we never heard about them.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm NOT saying LSAT scores or stellar GPAs impress me much. (Nor am I saying Clarence Thomas was "unqualified" -- quite the opposite. He's my favorite justice.)

I'm only pointing out that this parallels what people are saying about Miers's record at SMU -- the assumption being that if we're not hearing about it, it must not have been too good.

As for Thomas's record in his very short time on the federal bench, I'd like to know who characterized it as "impressive," and HOW exactly it was "impressive." (I'm not disputing he's been impressive since he's been at SCOTUS.)

[EDINVA]

omg, the woman can read?????????????

based on reports of our fav conservative pundits, the woman is all but illiterate ... will wonders ever cease ?

[curiosity]

That aside, I do believe, in that President Bush was duly elected, and as such, has the right, under the Constitution, to nominate whom he thinks is best to be appointed to the Supreme Court, and that the process, guaranteed under that Constitution, go forward.

No one is disputing that. All we're saying is that the Senate, also being duly elected, has a right to reject nominees if does not deem them sufficiently qualified. We'll see whether the Senate does this.

I'm hoping it does, because I don't think Miers is qualified. That's just my opinion, of course, and I'm not a Senator. As a citizen, however, I have a right to express this opinion to my Senators and urge them to vote no.

[shhrubbery!]

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.

You know this only because of Thomas's record AFTER he was confirmed to SCOTUS.

Thomas, IIRC, had practically no written record before his confirmation. Kinda like Miers, wouldn't you say?

(And btw, I too supported Thomas at the time, as I do Miers now -- at least until we get to hear her at the Senate confirmation hearings.)

Who's to say that Miers wouldn't build up just as impressive evidence of "wide-ranging, expansive mind, familiar with natural law theory and some of the big ideas that lie behind our constitution" -- during and after her confirmation, too?