Slouching Towards Miers [Robert Bork]

Wall Street Journal ^ | 10-19-2005 | Robert Bork

[Stellar Dendrite]

Bush shows himself to be indifferent, if not hostile, to conservative values.

With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals.

There is, to say the least, a heavy presumption that Ms. Miers, though undoubtedly possessed of many sterling qualities, is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. It is not just that she has no known experience with constitutional law and no known opinions on judicial philosophy. It is worse than that. As president of the Texas Bar Association, she wrote columns for the association's journal. David Brooks of the New York Times examined those columns. He reports, with supporting examples, that the quality of her thought and writing demonstrates absolutely no "ability to write clearly and argue incisively."

The administration's defense of the nomination is pathetic: Ms. Miers was a bar association president (a nonqualification for anyone familiar with the bureaucratic service that leads to such presidencies); she shares Mr. Bush's judicial philosophy (which seems to consist of bromides about "strict construction" and the like); and she is, as an evangelical Christian, deeply religious. That last, along with her contributions to pro-life causes, is designed to suggest that she does not like Roe v. Wade, though it certainly does not necessarily mean that she would vote to overturn that constitutional travesty.

[writer33]

I'm buzzing off and weaping. I hope you're happy.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

There are only five Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee?

[af_vet_1981]

What a disgrace this nomination-process loser Mr. Bork has become. He wants nothing more than somebody else to join him in the ranks of those who couldn't get confirmed. He relies on David Brooks - no person more or less than ol' Krypt himself has discredited the hit piece he refers to from the *conservative* at the NY Times, instead of himself, to *attack* Miers' writings. Bork WILL be ashamed of himself, eventually.

I don't know. Old people lose it sometimes. The tuck goes out of their sails and they never amount to anything else. He'll probably die a bitter loser who tried to bite the ankles of those who will do the work he could not.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Bork is a crybaby, crapping in his adult diapers.

[alcuin]

Did Bork oppose and traduce Roberts? Where was he?

The complaint isn't that a buzzword be espoused during the hearings; the post-Bork environment militates against that.

Roberts danced, but there WAS a songbook.

[birbear]

Bump for what you said!

[Racehorse]

He relies on David Brooks - no person more or less than ol' Krypt himself has discredited the hit piece he refers to from the *conservative* at the NY Times, instead of himself, to *attack* Miers' writings.

The attack on Miers' writing surprised me.  Unless I'm absolutely off the mark, Scalia is the only Justice who pens his own draft opinions.

The role of the clerks is . . . large:  Bork should have known better.  One brief description here:

Q – Ole Moen:

My impression is that the clerks play a greater role in writing opinions now than previously. I know that practice varies from justice to justice (and from case to case). Also, by the pooling of the certiorari* screening process, [some] clerks seem to play a more decisive role than previously. I would like your views on both questions. [*Note: a writ of certiorari is a decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court.]

A – JOHN YOO:

I think that clerks have played a significant role in writing opinions for many decades. If one looks at reports of the late [Chief Justice Earl] Warren and early [Chief Justice Warren] Burger courts, it seems clear that clerks were already at that time playing an important role.

Much earlier in American history, there were no clerks and justices wrote the opinions themselves. If one looks at the records of the early Supreme Court, for example, it seems clear that the justices wrote all of their opinions on their own. I think that clerks play their most influential role in what is known as the "cert pool." The cert [certiorari] pool refers to the cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court. The justices vote every few weeks on what cases to accept from that pool. It is the clerks who review those cases and draft a memo summarizing the issues and recommending to the justices where to grant or deny an appeal.

[onyx]

Your post is deleted.

Publications requiring excerpts cannot be posted here in their entirety. FR can be sued.

[alcuin]

Far better simply to state what one believes, regarding the particular thread, no?

Not always.

What's a good backfire, between friends?

Te deum.

[beckett]

From Brooks' column:

In the early '90s, while she was president of the Texas bar association, Miers wrote a column called "President's Opinion" for The Texas Bar Journal. It is the largest body of public writing we have from her, and sad to say, the quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian.

Nothing excuses sentences like this: "More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems."

Or this: "We must end collective acceptance of inappropriate conduct and increase education in professionalism."

Or this: "When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on issues of importance, the greatest impact can be achieved."

Or passages like this: "An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin."

I don't know if by mere quotation I can fully convey the relentless march of vapid abstractions that mark Miers' prose. Nearly every idea is vague and depersonalized. Nearly every debatable point is elided. It's not that Miers didn't attempt to tackle interesting subjects. She wrote about unequal access to the justice system, about the underrepresentation of minorities in the law and about whether pro bono work should be mandatory. But she presents no arguments or ideas, except the repetition of the bromide that bad things can be eliminated if people of good will come together to eliminate bad things.

Throw aside ideology. Surely the threshold skill required of a Supreme Court justice is the ability to write clearly and argue incisively.

How on God's good earth did George Bush think he could get away with putting such an unqualified, mediocre crony on the court? She is going to get sliced and diced before the committee.

[Earthdweller]

"There are only five Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee?"

I think so unless you want to count Specter..

I may be wrong.

Arlen Specter CHAIRMAN, PENNSYLVANIA

Orrin G. Hatch UTAH

Patrick J. Leahy RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT

Charles E. Grassley IOWA

Edward M. Kennedy MASSACHUSETTS

Jon Kyl ARIZONA

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. DELAWARE

Mike DeWine OHIO

Herbert Kohl WISCONSIN

Jeff Sessions ALABAMA

Dianne Feinstein CALIFORNIA

Lindsey Graham SOUTH CAROLINA

Russell D. Feingold WISCONSIN

John Cornyn TEXAS

Charles E. Schumer NEW YORK

Sam Brownback KANSAS

Richard J. Durbin ILLINOIS

Tom Coburn OKLAHOMA

[upchuck]

Bush shows himself to be indifferent, if not hostile, to conservative values.

I received a "begging and pleading for money" email from Ken Mehlman, head of the RNC tonight. In my response to him I really beat on this hard.

I am first and foremost a conservative. It just so happens that, of the major, worth voting for parties, the Republican Party aligns itself most closely with my views.

I can no longer believe that President Bush is a conservative. Oh, he has some conservative qualities. But he is not a true, dyed in the wool conservative.

My bottom line to Ken: no moolah until the RNC comes back home to it's conservative roots.

And I'll be shocked and awed if that happens.

[onyx]

I count 10...lol.

[Kryptonite]

Clerks not only help write releases of all sorts, they can influence a judge's decision. If I told you why I know this I might have to kill you.

[indianrightwinger]

Nonsense. Point to subtantive errors in his op-ed.

I agree with it. Miers is shown to be a total fence sitter with extremely poor examples of *clear* writing (again going back to her fence sitting habit). She is pro affirmative action and has been a long-time Liberal most her adult life.

[no dems]

"Graham is such a weasel.........His base needs to replace him. He's had his chance to lead. Now, he needs to let others have the opportunity."

Even though I really do love George W., the same can sure as heck be said for him.

[The Red Zone]

Keep on spouting irrelevant comments, you will keep on getting scoffed at.

[indianrightwinger]

He is an embarrasment to the republican caucus.

[KMAJ2]

The one who got Borked is now borking, can you see the hypocrisy ?

[TheDon]

There is, to say the least, a heavy presumption that Ms. Miers, though undoubtedly possessed of many sterling qualities, is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

Sniff, sniff.... < /elitism >