Skip to comments.HARRIET MIERS WRITES -- YEESH
Posted on 10/08/2005 8:52:39 AM PDT by JCEccles
The lovably irascible Beldar, the Texas trial lawyer who is one of the two people on earth hotly defending the Miers nomination (the other being our buddy Hugh Hewitt), has posted a convenient link to articles written by Harriet Miers during one of her stints as a bar association honcho. He did this in part to address a charge I made on Hugh's show that Miers shouldn't be taken seriously because over the past 30 years of hot dispute on matters of constitutional law she hadn't published so much as an op-ed on a single topic of moment. Thank you, Beldar. But you shouldn't have. I mean, for Miers's sake, you really shouldn't have.
Miers's articles here are like all "Letters from the President" in all official publications -- cheery and happy-talky and utterly inane. They offer no reassurance that there is anything other than a perfectly functional but utterly ordinary intellect at work here.
Let me offer you an analogy. I was a talented high-school and college actor. I even considered trying it as a career at one time. As an adult, I've been in community theater productions (favorably reviewed in the Virginia local weekly supplement of the Washington Post, yet!) and spent a year or so performing improv comedy in New York. I'm a more than decent semi-pro. But if you took me today and gave me a leading role in the Royal Shakespeare Company where I would have to stand toe to toe with, say, Kenneth Branagh, Kevin Spacey, Meryl Streep, Kevin Kline and others, I would be hopelessly out of my depth. I would be able to give some kind of performance. But it would be a lousy performance, a nearly unwatchable performance.
Would that be because I hadn't acted at their level for a few decades? Would it be because I don't really have commensurate talent? Who knows? Who cares? I would stink. And based on the words she herself has written -- the clearest independent evidence we have of her capacity to reason and think and argue -- as a Supreme Court justice, Harriet Miers would be about as good.
These people are Northeastern elitist snobs.
Souter in drag.
I've only read one piece of her writing, I must confess. But I found it flat and unimpressive. I had much the same impression as this. Whatever you think of Podhoretz, he's a fine stylist, and he knows whereof he speaks.
Shakespeare says that "style is the man." Read any editorial by Maureen Dowd and you quickly understand what kind of mind she has. There's nothing like that in Miers's style, but to me it reveals a pedestrian mind, very dangerous among the sharks on the Supreme Court. Yes, she's a convinced Christian and a successful office manager. But I've yet to be convinced that she can stand up to the pressures on SCOTUS.
Muscular, effective, incisive, painstakingly accurate writing is a SCOTUS jusctice's stock in trade. Miers' "golly glittering gee" writing fails by any reasonable measure.
Does this make them wrong? Are you not just speaking from the vantage point of another sort of snobbery?
Harriet Day O'Miers
Whaa She is NOT my choice!!! Whaaa! Funny how all these NRO clowns seem to forget that Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Stevens WERE the product of this elitist Judaical activist system they are so desperate advocating. Maybe they might ask themselves WHY Renquest was NOT?
John Pod is an op-ed writer. John Pod thinks that op-ed writing is a qualification for SC judges. John Pod is op-ed-centric
Funny how Souter was the pick of the Republican Establishment not Bush Sr. Funny how these same people called Thomas, Bush Sr's personal pick, "More Souter then Bork". Also kind of curious how all the same people started saying the same things about Roberts.
"These people are Northeastern elitist snobs."
Thats Bull. And a vain attempt to attack the messenger. I read NRO daily and love it - and I'm a Texas redneck.
Miers is way out of her depth. I don't think she's capable of writing a dissenting opinion that won't be laughed at in Austin.
Face it, she was a bad pick for SCOTUS. I hope she's defeated so we can nominate someone of Scalia's or Bork's caliber.
0 + Podhoretz's opinions = 0
I very much understand this perspective. However, the more I keep reading the "we must have academic excellence" argument being used against Miers the more it rankles. I wonder why? I have an advanced degree from one of the top engineering schools in the US. At the same time I've found that just plain folks with "utterly ordinary intellects" can do quite well in sorting through thorny and complex questions about adhering to the founder's original intent in the Constitition. My goodness, this woman is being portrayed as a silly simpleton Aunt Bea character. It's not like Cindy Sheehan was nominated. And don't anyone tell me "we just don't know" because we just didn't know about Roberts either - we just took the pundit's and politician's word about it. Sure some folks probably did pull Robert's papers and actually read them. I would guess that most just read what others said about him. This is more about a power struggle within the Republican party than whether or not Miers is "acceptable". Let's not piss off too many people as we choose the next direction for the party shall we? In other words, let's not lose the war to win the battle.
John Pod refuses to acknowledge her article in Texas Lawyer.
"Whaa She is NOT my choice!!! Whaaa! Funny how all these NRO clowns seem to forget that Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Stevens WERE the product of this elitist Judaical activist system they are so desperate advocating. Maybe they might ask themselves WHY Renquest was NOT?"
Yup, elitist is elitist, left or right. These chumps like pod person just don't like the fact Miers isn't one of them...the self appointed almighty highmasters of the world.
Get over it crybabies, she is going to be confirmed and you are going to get atomic wedgies!
Also the utter brainlessness....