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."

[USPatriette]

""We Texas lawyers must all get together and work hard to be nice, to lift up the downtrodden, to help minorities, to work for multiculturalism.""

First of all, I don't recall seeing that loaded 21st-century word, "multiculturalism," in any of her bar journal writings, but I could be wrong. Let's just be careful not to put words in her mouth.

I also think you have to remember what her professional role was at the time she was writing them. People just seem to want to gloss right over that, but I think it's important.

[JCEccles]

I'm sure she'l be prepared to weather the week or so of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Expectations are low, and she'll benefit greatly from that. And none of the Senators, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle, is even a second rate constitutional scholar.

[Cboldt]

... 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.

Damn. I just had another scary thought. Need ... more ... tinfoil.

What if this is a plan to seat a Justice that will be found to be wanting, and the Congress and Senate finally get off the dime and actually USE that impeachment power we the people granted to them in the Constitution?

[Cautor]

"The temptation will be great for some [senators] to try to match wits with her on constitutional issues."

What's the old advice: never argue with an idiot. They'll pull you down to their level and beat you with experience. In this case, I'd say we have an even match: Miers v. Senators.

[Cicero]

No, it wasn't the actual word multiculturalism. But she uses the word "diversity" a great deal.

[born in the Bronx]

His work on the bench is reported to have been impressive, he had a long-established record as a conservative, he was too far from the President for there to be even a whiff of cronyism, and (I'm almost afraid to say this) he was a graduate of Yale Law School, which is the most selective law school in the country. (Harvard Law is very big, Yale is tiny).

[Plutarch]

I had an aunt who liked to converse and write personal correspondence that way...

We all have aunts that write that way, but we don't think to appoint them to the Supreme Court.

The only reason these notes are being discussed is that we know very little of her professional ability. What we do know, is not consistent with a Supreme Court Justice, these cutesy little notes especially so.

[flashbunny]

You'll notice that the statement mentions conservatism, and not republicanism. There is a difference.

Also, since you claim Jim Robinson as your inspiration, let me post more of his words for you:

---

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1500910/posts?page=184#184

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!!

---

Also, if you are going to opus, proper etiquette indicates you should post your own thread in news / activism.

[Mike Darancette]

Supporters expressed confidence that Miers' appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee will quiet critics who question her qualifications for the nation's highest court.

The critics will be heard. When NARAL, Move-On and the DNC get around to opposing Miers our Conservative pundits and self appointed leaders will be quoted ad nausium.

[The Red Zone]

Oh, my auntie was a screaming liberal, but she knew how to pack a punch in print when she wanted to. She embarrassed the government in her state into a settlement of a dispute with an Indian tribe.

[Cicero]

Well, I have never denied that she's a successful big-firm lawyer, who has taken on a number of major cases. Nor have I said that she's dumb, because clearly she isn't. But I don't think she has the kind of generalist mind that would be appropriate to a Supreme Court justice. And I'm not persuaded that she's really conservative on many of the important issues.

[The Red Zone]

Also, if you are going to opus

Filthy trash talk. This was not an "I quit" speech.

[USPatriette]

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

And I think we just nailed a big part of what this opposition is about ..... if we're honest. Why is being a "lightweight" from Yale preferable to being a "lightweight" from SMU? Seems to me the latter might have much more potential. ;-)

I jest, but only a little.

[AndyJackson]

Nothing more needs to be said.

Yeah, well, the irony may be lost on some folks here, so it needs to be said. Did Roberts need a crash course on constitutional law, or Scalia, or Thomas, or Rhenquist, or O'Connor, or Ginsberg, or ...???

[trubluolyguy]

I thought we were better than the other sites when it came to supporting our party and our president.

---

I am sorry, did I stumble into a "Republicans Only" or "Party over Principles" web site by mistake?

[G.Mason]

"Interesting, all you can do is repeat Buchanan's name, and comment on his political popularity, as you continue to cover your eyes and ears and ignore what was said."

Interesting to whom? The "many" that told you that choosing the right person for SCOTUS this was the most important decision bar none?

Comment on Buchanans political popularity? What the hell is that all about? Like the specters of ghosts past, Buchanan is untouchable?

As far as my covering my eyes and ears is concerned, I am a rather open individual, not predisposed of rushing to judgement, unless provoked. I have not been provoked by the Miers nomination and will continue to read and understand, both the pros and the cons of the person President Bush selected, the possible reasoning for it, and the possible reprecussions either way.

[Mike Darancette]

Please see Arlen Specter's comments

Sphincter would rather she study Scottish Law.

[curiosity]

I'm not underestimating Bush. I'm attacking him for doing massive long-term damage to the fiscal health of the country. On other threads, I attack him for failing to fight affirmative action and to control our borders.

It amazes me how people continue to think he's a conservative when he has done more to increase the size and scope of the federal government than any Democrat since Johnson.

Bush is no conservative. He's a borrow and spend liberal.

[dc-zoo]

No, Miers is "stepping up" to the highest court.

[flashbunny]

--- Filthy trash talk. This was not an "I quit" speech.---

The original post:

"for the first time since I've been posting here, I am ashamed to be a part of FR. I thought we were better than the other sites when it came to supporting our party and our president. Some posters are trying to make it another forum which it was not intended to be. I am going to quit signing onto FR until this site regains it's original pride in supporting our President and not the opposition."

It was close enough.

P.S. There's this thing called a sense of humor...you might want to look into one before you participate in a discussion forum.

The poster responsible for the quasi-opus has spent the past two weeks or so posting 'funny' pictures to mock people that disagree with him. So he's able to make jokes, but no one else can when it's about what he's done?

Nice to know the double standards apply across the board.