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

Mercury News ^ | 14 Oct 05 | RON HUTCHESON

[The Red Zone]

The various articles and ABA presidential columns reveal a fluff-minded, cliche-driven lightweight.

I had an aunt who liked to converse and write personal correspondence that way, and somehow she managed to have a serious side too. So I know it's not impossible. You can see the same sort of stuff in CEO speak everywhere. You know that it doesn't encompass the thousandth part of what these high and mighty executives actually DO from day to day.

[Cicero]

A few, evidently very few, freepers have read Miers's columns written while she was president of the Texas ABA. As many commented, they are at best fluff. They are dull, repetitive, naive, and cliched as well.

Even fewer have seen her so-called serious articles. Here's a list of links here. READ THIS STUFF, please, before you venture to say she's a wonderful candidate.

Articles By Miers

• "Recommended Reading: Issues for the Multijurisdictional Lawyer where pro hac vice Admission Does Not Apply," 2001 Arkansas L. Notes 131 (2001) (pdf)
• "ABA Study of Multistate Practice on Fast Track," 36 Tennessee Bar J. 6 (2000) (pdf)
• "Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice," 11 Professional Lawyer 20 (2000) (pdf)
• "Texas Life Insurance Update." In Conference on Life Insurance Litigation: ALI-ABA Course of Study Materials: May 13-14, 1999.  Philadelphia, Penn.:  American Law Institute-American Bar Association Committee on Continuing Professional Education, 1999.  (pdf)
• "Science, Business, or Art?" 56 Texas Bar J. 446 (1993) (pdf)
• "As if the Funds Were Our Own ...," 56 Texas Bar J. 330 (1993) (pdf)
• "What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate," 56 Texas Bar J. 210 (1993) (pdf)
• "Our Number One Priority ...," 56 Texas Bar J. 106 (1993) (pdf)
• "Focusing on the Positive," 56 Texas Bar J. 6 (1993) (pdf)
• "Time to Think," 55 Texas Bar J. 1112 (1992) (pdf)
• "Parts of the Whole Working Together," 55 Texas Bar J. 1012 (1992) (pdf)
• "Inclusion, Education and Mentoring," 55 Texas Bar J. 910 (1992) (pdf)
• "Justice for All - All for Justice," 55 Texas Bar J. 780 (1992) (pdf)
• "The Real Issue ...," 55 Texas Bar J. 664 (1992) (pdf)
• "Legacies of a Lawyer ...," 55 Texas Bar J. 548 (1992) (pdf)

[shhrubbery!]

Miers is a different kettle of fish [from Thomas]. She's a lousy candidate, as her own record and writings, slim as they are, amply confirm.

HOW exactly are Miers's qualifications a "different kettle of fish" than Thomas's?

I really, really would like specific answers to that question. I've been asking it for several days now, and nobody has come up with an answer.

(And yes, I'm aware Thomas had been on the federal bench for a few months prior to his nomination. But the evidence of his "scholarship" in constitutional law was at that time extremely "slim," too.)

[G.Mason]

"First time I've laughed out loud today. Thanks."

We, all of us, need to keep our sense of humor.

It will be a small comfort to us as we shoot, and are shot at, in the coming "Uncivil War".

[Cboldt]

Pay attention to her legal briefs which of course don't contain any of the airiness and lightness you so loathe.

The legal briefs in the Jones case are not definitively her work, and even if they were, they are pedestrian, and they shed little light on the preparer's judicial philosophy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502796/posts
http://rapidshare.de/files/6012929/Jones_v_Bush_-_Bush_and_Cheney_5th_Cir_Brief.zip.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502903/posts?page=202#202

On that last one, read up and down the thread a bit, or follow the "replied to" and "replies" links.

[gobucks]

"Topped off by being personal legal council to the most powerful man in the world. Unless damaging evidence comes out or unless Miers screws up royal, she will be confirmed."

It is that obvious to me as well.

[Plutarch]

It is said that this cannot be done:

[born in the Bronx]

Unlikely--Roberts was also a corporate lawyer (specializing in Constitutional issues). It's a shame they can't do a mock trial with Miers and Roberts--if it were a serious fight, I'd feel a lot better about her, even if she lost.

[gobucks]

You sound like a conservative protestant southerner. That I think is your first crime regarding all this "hate" we are witnessing.

But, in my view, bring it on. The more we see exactly who is in the GOP, revealed as they really are, the better.

[Cboldt]

I would like to post the below statement by the founder of Free Republic, Jim Robinson. He is my inspiration for coming on board FR a year ago and I hope some of those posters that have forgotten his words will start living up to his magnificent goals he set forth on this forum.

Have you seen his position relating to this nomination?

[The Red Zone]

OK, I looked at the first one. It's a bit wordy, but it is perfectly clear.

[flashbunny]

"If these articles were the sum total of her proceedings there, you'd have a prayer... but that's a ludicrous thought."

no, not really. They're perhaps the most revealing thing that we have that are just about her. Other have tried to point to other cases (the slam dunk cheney residency case, for example) where she was just one of many lawyers handling a case. But there is nothing there to say what kind of legal mind she had.

But these articles are strictly her along. They reveal a sort of vapid, unoriginal mid-level manager filler-speak mindset.

It shows a kind of person who will write something meaningless to fill space and use banal phrases that avoid making any serious recommendations or criticism, in order to avoid taking an actual stand and risk offending someone and harming the sacred career path.

Basically, what is most damning is that almost absolutely nothing was said. No stand was taken. No originality.

Now, that might be nice when you're the staff secretary for most of your stay at the whitehouse, or counsel for less than the last year. You're doing what you're told to do and trying to get along with everybody.

However, when you're one of the 9 most powerful people in the country, and able to impact every aspect of American life, that's less desirable. If she chooses to go along with scalia and Thomas, just dandy, that's a free vote.

But what happens when scalia and Thomas are gone? Or if she drifts towards ginsberg and the other liberals?

People say she's loyal to the president, but once she's on the court, that loyalty is meaningless. She's as high as she can go, and she can't be removed from the bench. And come January 20, 2009, there isn't going to be a president bush in the oval office to be loyal to---she'll have to stand on her own.

[gobucks]

It is nice to see you posting outside the evo threads. So many of your peers find these waters .... unpalatable.

So, it is nice to see your alignment w/ the MSM characterizations....it is revealing. It is also nice to see standard run of the mill, repeated underestimation of GWB.

The more I watch this, the more I look forward to figuring out who it is that will swear her in. I doubt it will be Stevens.

[Cboldt]

It's really an obligation that Freepers who support Miers should take. Read her writings. It's the least you can do before helping to put her on the Supreme Court for life. What kind of a woman is she? See for yourselves.

No. It is you who have to prove that her writings are not of the highest caliber. She is an excellent constitutionalist in the mold of the founcers, and will rule from the bench like Scalia, Thomas or Rhenquist. Trust me.

Sigh. Yet again. Round and round we go - and some are defending murky government process. I just don't get it. Guess I haven't been assimilated yet, I dunno.

[born in the Bronx]

I'm mostly anti-Miers too, and your point about the big team of lawyers in correct. However, she's the one who did the actual arguing, and according to her well-credentialed opponent, she did a fine job of it.

[DTogo]

I'm overly concerned about her crash-coursing in Constitutional law before the hearings, every nominee preps I'm sure, so much as I am about how she will respond to critical questions such as her advice to the President on GWOT-related issues and whether she would have to recuse herself as an SC Justice if they came before her, having advised the President to establish certain policies and practices to begin with.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>I am going to quit signing onto FR until this site regains it's original pride in supporting our President and not the opposition.

First off, this isn't a Republican website. It's a conservative website. Most FReepers support PresBush in his efforts in the WOT. In fact, most FReepers support Bush on most issues. However, if people think the President is wrong, they should respectfully speak out against him. Whether that be on policy or political matters. Political dissent is at the core of our first amendment rights. This political storm over the Miers nomination will pass.

[The Red Zone]

And come January 20, 2009, there isn't going to be a president bush in the oval office to be loyal to---she'll have to stand on her own.

It would be improper for her to lean further on Bush from the moment Justice Roberts administers the oath to her.

BUT she can still work as a team with the legacy that Bush respects, and so does she - Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts. That's much more than Sandra Day O'Connor would do.

[EGPWS]

It's amusing to see all the antiMiersbots wail and gnash their teeth.

Look at the bright side of this and the amusement obtained, for it to be an issue in the forefront of concern, is only available because of the directives from the White House for the last 6 years in maintaining this availability.

Because many are outspoken of this issue, it comes from the maintenance of our free society which is based upon free enterprise.

All who are p!ssed at the present situation with a single issue as this one, just envision the issues at hand if we would have had if Dubya' were to have lost the election in '00.

The availability of issues to focus on would be endless.

[gobucks]

Funny, I read standard run of the mill work by someone who has been very careful to watch just exactly what her paper trial looks like.

But, if she is incompetent, as your thorough research provides, I'm sure this 'fluff' woman will sound fluffy, yes? She'll sound 'naive' yes? Dull too ... right?

So the worst case scenario is all the conservatives who are angry are right, and the nomination will be rejected by a 'conservative' senate, and then Bush will nominate the 'right' person, and that person will get confirmed and we'll all be one happy family again.