Posted on 10/19/2005 4:31:13 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
Of all the words written about Harriet Miers, none are more disturbing than the ones she wrote herself. 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.
Of course, we have to make allowances for the fact that the first job of any association president is to not offend her members. Still, 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: "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."
Or, finally, this: "We have to understand and appreciate that achieving justice for all is in jeopardy before a call to arms to assist in obtaining support for the justice system will be effective. Achieving the necessary understanding and appreciation of why the challenge is so important, we can then turn to the task of providing the much needed support."
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.
Or as she puts it, "There is always a necessity to tend to a myriad of responsibilities on a number of cases as well as matters not directly related to the practice of law." And yet, "Disciplining ourselves to provide the opportunity for thought and analysis has to rise again to a high priority."
Throw aside ideology. Surely the threshold skill required of a Supreme Court justice is the ability to write clearly and argue incisively. Miers' columns provide no evidence of that.
The Miers nomination has reopened the rift between conservatives and establishment Republicans.
The conservative movement was founded upon the supposition that ideas have consequences. Conservatives have founded so many think tanks, magazines and organizations, like the Federalist Society, because they believe that you have to win arguments to win political power. They dream of Supreme Court justices capable of writing brilliant opinions that will reshape the battle of ideas.
Republicans, who these days are as likely to belong to the corporate establishment as the evangelical establishment, are more suspicious of intellectuals and ideas, and more likely to believe that politics is about deal-making, loyalty and power. You know you are in establishment GOP circles when the conversation is bland but unifying. You know you are in conservative circles when it is interesting but divisive. Conservatives err by becoming irresponsible. Republicans tend to be blown about haplessly by forces they cannot understand.
For the first years of his presidency, George Bush healed the division between Republicans and conservatives by pursuing big conservative goals with ruthless Republican discipline. But Harriet Miers has shown no loyalty to conservative institutions like the Federalist Society. Her loyalty has been to the person of the president, and her mental style seems to be Republicanism on stilts.
So conservatives are caught between loyalty to their ideas and loyalty to the president they admire. Most of them have come out against Miers — quietly or loudly. Establishment Republicans are displaying their natural loyalty to leadership. And Miers is caught in the vise between these two forces, a smart and good woman who has been put in a position where she cannot succeed.
/sarcasm
Ping!
Sigh. Thanks for the post. The Bush Administration has really screwed this up -- I don't understand how they could mess up something so important.
Yes. Well said. Those quotations nearly make me weep.
The quotated writing example are pathetic. They prove again that she is a fencesitter, and tries to be nice.
Ooops "quoted" ....
Ouch! It really looks like this one's going down.
Amazing how so many supposed "Conservatives" are so quick to adopt RINOs like Brooks that say what they want to hear. Guess you and David did NOT see the Rasmussen poll numbers it is NOT Miers who is "Sinking" when only 12% of Conservatives agree with the Hate Harriette all the time dogma of the fringe "Moveon.org" Conservatives.
Curious, just what part of the Constitution do you people think gives you Veto authority over the President's Judicial Picks? Gonna be kind of hard for you people to go back to arguing for an up or down vote for President Judicial picks now that you have adopted everyone of the Hysteric Left's talking points to rationalize your knee jerk Bush hate "dump Miers" error. Nice job. Thanks for helping flush 5 years work on educating the public on the Constitutioal duties of the Pres and the Senate just so you all can have a hissy fit because the President did not pick one of YOUR cronies.
"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."
"We must end collective acceptance of inappropriate conduct and increase education in professionalism."
"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."
"We have to understand and appreciate that achieving justice for all is in jeopardy before a call to arms to assist in obtaining support for the justice system will be effective. Achieving the necessary understanding and appreciation of why the challenge is so important, we can then turn to the task of providing the much needed support."
OOOOOHhhh litte touchy about the truth being told you hmmm? Don't like the fact that the Anti-Miers arguements are a bunch of hysteric elitest nonsense. Gee sorry one of Ann's cronies wasn't picked. Better luck next time.
Amazing how so many supposed "Conservatives" are so quick to adopt RINOs like Brooks that say what they want to hear.
She sounds like a complete idiot.
I think the President was primarily concerned with abolishing abortion off the face of our map, and in his rush to appoint a person who would do this he overlooked the fact that she does not appear to be a solid SCOTUS candidate for the many other issues America faces, and will face in the future. But frankly, if she gets confirmed by the Senate and eventually does help to throw down Roe v Wade, I believe God will bless our country in ways that nobody has dreamed of.
I wasn't so I did some research and posted this thread: Two articles by Harriet Miers (is her writing as bad as they say?)
That last one is a real beauty.
I think it's called the 'confirmation process' in which our elected Representatives can either give the thumbs up or down for Miers.
It must be incumbent upon all who wish, or who desired and therefore were on notice that the effort required to respond, or to not answer, as necessity dictates in these stressful and questioning interludes of reason, that what the natural tendency really wasn't to take as criticism, really, in the final analysis, is, or was.
Hmmm what part of the Consitution give you self appointed critics veto power over the President's judical picks? My copy seems to left that out. But that's right, the Hate Harriet people all want a "Strict Constructionist" as long as it is one that will be "Strict Constructionist" they way they think it should be read.
No one adopted anyone. The piece - as it is written - presents new facts in a clear way. It may as well have been written by Saddam from his jail cell - it was a good piece.
But you are putting the personality above the facts. Just like W has repeatedly promoted not the best person for a job on the basis of their ideas, professional background, and educational background, but because of their loyalty to him.
Are there any criticisms at all you have of W? Or is the cult of personality what you have bought into?
She is going to crash and burn at the hearing. It will be especially obvious following John Roberts' performance.
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.