Posted on 10/20/2005 11:19:05 AM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
I have stayed away from the depressing and divisive subject of Harriet Miers for a few days. It was a healthy little respite. But things have taken yet another grim, embarrassing turn--and it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine that this nomination will make it to the scheduled Nov. 7 Senate hearing date.
First, if you haven't already read it, check out Miers' 57-page questionnaire (in PDF via NRO), which she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The blogosphere has brutally dissected Miers' answers, non-answers, and unintelligible gibberish. See, for example, Steve Bainbridge, Prawfsblawg, Victor Fleischer, James Lindgren, Patterico, and Bench Memos.
Now, Sens. Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy have rendered their verdict: They want a do-over. Words like "underwhelming," "inadequate," and "insulting" are streaming out of Washington. And it's not just from the lips and keyboards of elitist/sexist pundits. Via WaPo:
Barely concealing their irritation during a 35-minute news conference at the Capitol, Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) called the lobbying on Miers's behalf "chaotic," and said the answers she provided Monday to a lengthy questionnaire were inadequate. "The comments I have heard range from incomplete to insulting," Leahy said.
They sent Miers a three-page letter asking for more detailed responses in several areas, and Specter said he has asked the Bush administration for more documents concerning her work as White House counsel. Specter said Miers must provide "amplification on many, many of the items" included in the first questionnaire.
Miers quickly replied, writing that she would comply with the new request. She also wrote that "as a result of an administrative oversight," her Texas law license was suspended for 26 days in 1989 because of unpaid dues. On Monday, Miers disclosed that her D.C. law license was briefly suspended last year because of unpaid annual dues.
Announcing plans to start the hearing Nov. 7 despite Democrats' request for more time, Specter told reporters: "This is going to be an unusual hearing where I think all 18 senators are going to have probing questions." The panel has 10 Republicans and eight Democrats.
This also jumped out at me and exacerbated my already queasy stomach:
At yesterday's news conference, Specter appeared to be annoyed with Miers on several points. He said his staff gave him a "big binder" of legal cases she had handled in private practice, but "she gave us a skimpy little group" of material describing those cases in response to the questionnaire's request for details of her most important cases. "No reason we should know more about her cases than she does," he said.
Specter said he remained perplexed by a disagreement Monday stemming from his meeting with Miers in his office, after which their accounts differed on what the nominee had said about Supreme Court rulings that preceded Roe.
In dealing with 11 Supreme Court nominees, Specter said, "I've never walked out of a room and had a disagreement as to what was said." He smiled politely as Leahy said, "I've never known him to make a mistake on what he heard."
Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers's response to the committee's request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to "the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause" as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.
"There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation -- which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies -- with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.
Go back to Miers' questionnaire and pay special attention to Question 22 on p. 49 to grasp Sunstein's point:
While I was an at-large member of the Dallas City Council, I dealt with issues that involved constitutional questions. For instance, when addressing a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause.
As a non-elite, non-lawyer, non-Beltway pundit might put it: "What the...?!?" If this bizarre gaffe is supposed to demonstrate Miers' sharp legal mind and painstaking attention to detail, God help us all.
President Bush promised Senators that they'd fall in love with Harriet once they got to know her. But the Los Angeles Times reports that Republicans have been damning her with faint praise after emerging from meetings:
"I might have liked a different type nominee myself, but that's the president's choice," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said after his meeting with Miers.
The lackluster beginning of her campaign to be confirmed raises the stakes for Miers, and the president, when she appears before the Judiciary Committee. Senators of both parties say her nomination will succeed or fail based on how well she performs.
Senators and aides have been reluctant to provide details of their meetings with Miers because they do not want to antagonize the White House. But some described her as surprisingly reticent and, in a word used by more than one of them, "underwhelming."
Even those who were impressed said that she offered up little of herself in conversation. "In these meetings she has been very guarded," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
One senator found her much too quiet. The lawmaker had such a hard time hearing Miers that aides had to tell people outside the meeting room to quiet down.
"She doesn't have the gravitas in terms of the constitutional issues," said another senator who has been critical of Miers. The nominee, the senator said, would not answer questions about whether she would recuse herself if issues involving her work with Bush came before the high court.
"Generally when you hold these interviews, people want to show you what they know," the senator said. "She did not respond. Nothing came back."
These accounts do not bode well for Miers' scheduled testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in two weeks. Her supporters might argue that expectations are so low that she will have an easy time appeasing committee members after she has boned up on constitutional law. But John Roberts' stellar, authoritative performance--speaking without notes and jousting vigorously with the panel for four days--set a high standard. Does anyone believe from testimonials like this and this and this that Miers can meet that standard?
On top of all this, add reporting by John Fund and Bob Novak that raises questions about Miers' messy dealings while on the Texas Lottery Commission.
What does it spell? T-R-O-U-B-L-E.
***
Read on.
You are against Miers because she is what? Or not what?
I don't want to anger any Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham fans, but Michelle is my favorite! What a babe!!!!!
""There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation -- which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies -- with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations."
For what's it's worth, Cass Sunstein is a big time liberal. The Bush bots will say, "aha, he's just trying to embarrass her." But another response would be that he is describing the current state of the EPC accurately, even though he would no doubt like there to be a proportionate representation requirement.
Well, yeah, there's that.
As Ann Coulter wrote this week
"We've gone from a representative democracy to a monarchy, and the most appalling thing is — even conservatives just hope like the dickens the next king is a good one. "
I thought it was just because "he knew her heart".
I worried about the Roberts nomination because it looked like Bush was going down the road of favoring stealth nominees. But he was clearly brilliant, well-versed in constitutional law, had expressed some opinions during his life, and had some experience as a judge.
Then Bush came out with Miers, who is all stealth without any of Roberts' brilliant, constitutional knowledge, public opinions, or judicial experience.
http://images.redstate.org/images/miersquestionaire.htm <- Mires' Answers
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/200510/101905b.html <- Senate response
Thanks, Stellar, for the collection of quotes from the Senators.
" I thought it was just because "he knew her heart"."
I forgot that one. I guess that's two knockdown arguments he has.
Any bets this is just the tip of her "Constitutional interpretation" iceberg?
Say what you want about Leahy and Specter. YOu won't find any argument here. They are both liberal a-holes. (Makes you wonder why the Prez campaigned for Specter, though....I guess the political geniuses had some sort of master plan...but that's another issue).
But here is the reality of the situation, like it or not.
They are the top two dawgs on judiciary. If they are strongly against, it will be hard to win in cmtee. If they lose in cmtee., it will be hard to win on the floor.
I'm sure at the end of the day the administration will pull this out because they will bust a lot of (conservative) heads to do so. But this is a pretty poor start to a nomination which was supposed to be stealthily brilliant and just too clever for us rubes out in the hinterland to grasp. They have a plan, they play checkers not chess, blah blah blah.
I am beginning to see that Harriet Mier's failure to articulate an opinion on issues of law over a 35 year law career was not a brilliant piece of "strategery" by an ambitious lawyer designed to make her an appealing stealth candidate at some point in her future. Her failure to put forth originalist or even conservative opinions throughout her career is because she doesn't apparently doesn't have a sufficient grasp of basic issues to do so. Each new piece of information about the woman makes this nomination seem more and more ill-advised and ill-considered. Today, in his new conference with the head of the Palistinean terrorists, um, government, the President was asked about conservative criticism of Harriet Miers. He dismissed it as background chatter. To steal someone else's comment about the remark, isn't it wonderful to see the President being nicer to terrorists than to the people that worked to put him into office?
Apparently, there is now a divine right of Presidents we are expected to accept.
The same could be said about his love of illegal aliens, as well.
There is not.
I read CB's post and I thought it raised a good point.
However, I think her answer should have been something like this:
"I dealt with the then hotly-contested constitutional issue of what is required in the districting of City Council seats, including the issue of whether or not proportional representation was required. As a Council Member, I worked to make sure that we met the requirements of the Constitution, but also tried to make sure that we did not unnecessarily wade into litigation and use scarce City resources to fight a lawsuit."
That would have been a good answer. And it would be a good position for a council member to take. But to imply or state the PR is required is wrong.
"But that's not an argument in her favor. It's a statement."
Don't get cute or I am going to email the Moderator and complain that you are a DU troll, a Hillary lover, indeed, a communist, as you obviously are.
The sky continues to grow darker for the Bushies. It looks like the conservatives have had it with the toadies and RINOs surrounding the president. I hope the flashback includes some serious discussion of the Bush open-borders policy.
A believer in group rights and various notions typically espoused by social engineers. A decidely paternalistic sort who sees lawyers as having near-magical powers to solve society's problems.
In other words, not a conservative but a liberal who is mistaken for one because she is pro-life.
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.