HARRIET MIERS WRITES -- YEESH

National Review Online -- The Corner ^ | October 8, 2005 | John Podhoretz

[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.

[born in the Bronx]

Me, post DNC talking points? Where? When?
Show me.

I never have, and never will, defend Souter's nomination. That doesn't make this one right; there are other and better ways to do it.
As for trusting the President, sometimes being >too< close can cloud your vision too. There was some distance between the President and all his other picks. There was some distance between Miers and all the other picks. This time, maybe they're both too close to see straight.

[born in the Bronx]

Sorry, George Morris should be George Mason---my bad.

[AndyJackson]

I am asserting that her intellectual credentials are just fine, thank you very much.

Well, some of us are not arguing formal "credentials" but demonstrated performance in the intellectual heavy lifting required of a Supreme Court justice. The lack of positive evidence is troublesome to some of us.

[Artemis Webb]

Sorry...Nice try.

But I support and trust George W Bush and Harriet Miers a lot more than I do John Podhoretz.

[AmishDude]

intellectual heavy lifting required of a Supreme Court justice

What the hell is that? You think any of the geniuses (even Scalia) can understand the proof of something as basic as Cayley's theorem? (Well, maybe Scalia...)

[Artemis Webb]

"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."

Nonsense, however well written, is still nonsense.

[XJarhead]

I don't believe that anybody who hasn't worked in a big law firm and experienced the rivalries, Byzantine politics, and covert warfare going on inside can fully appreciate what it means for somebody to have been managing partner of a big law firm.

Exactly. A person in her position would have been among the city's elite in the business community, and have the respect of the other 200+ ego-driven partners in her firm. She'd have to be a topnotch lawyer and administrator, used to takiing tough positions and holding to them. For anyone to equate her to an "office manager" is a joke.

[Owen]

It continues to sound good. 3 of 8 were not lawyers.

This should not be thought a revolutionary idea. There is no compelling reason why all USSC Justices must be lawyers. Lets have 3-4 non lawyers to interpret the Constitution and ignore stare decisis.

[AnAmericanMother]

And she can't be a dummy in the legal department either.

I can tell you from personal experience that other lawyers have zero respect for a "rainmaker" who hasn't got top flight legal skills. That kind of person may get a corner office in return for bringing in the bux, but they do NOT make managing partner.

(And the other lawyers make fun of them when they're not around.)

[Old Seadog]

"(I think you posted to the wrong person... I agree with Podhoretz here)"

My error. Sorry

[LucyJo]

"In other words, let's not lose the war to win the battle."
=======
Although I'm someone of "utterly ordinary intellect", I understand what you're saying, and I couldn't agree more...for what it's worth to the John P.'s of the world! lol.

Re: J.P's opinion that Miers would be out of her league on the SCOTUS,I've observed a number of so-called brilliant persons who didn't appear to have an ounce of common sense for all of their knowledge. What's the benefit of knowledge without wisdom? Some decisions of the SCJ's have proven faulty, and even harmful, over the years. All of that knowledge, yet such a lack of judgment!

Harriet Miers is no more a "dummy" than is George W. Bush, although there are a lot of people who would have us to believe both are dunces. Ms. Miers and the president do have one thing in common - they are both devout "born again" Christians. The "wise man" of the Bible says in the book of Proverbs that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom ("fear" meaning reverence). The lives of these two people demonstrate reverence for God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible.

Many, if not most, so-called intellectuals seem to find genuine religious zeal embarrassing and a sure sign of inferior intellect - especially zeal of the "evangelical Christian" kind! (Don't get me wrong, I know there are some real religious nut cases out there! lol.) That plus the lack of credentials from the right institutions of learning is enough "proof" for some that she is "unfit" to serve on the SCOTUS. SMU vs Harvard is the equivalent of being home-schooled or self-educated! It doesn't really matter how smart or capable you are if you don't have the right papers. OTOH, if you have the right credentials, but become "a genuinely devout evangelical Christian", your credentials aren't worth the paper they're written on anymore. (Remind you of anyone) ha.

These are just some thoughts I've had as I've watched this whole mess unfold.

[born in the Bronx]

Hey--ignoring stare decisis is part and parcel of the French system of law--you don't want to go there, do you?

Stare decisis is not an inherently bad thing--it means that judges are drawing on the accumulated wisdom, experience (and sometimes nonsense) of their predecessors. Conservatives like to preserve what's good from the past; it's leftists who come up with some great new vision and say let's just tear it down and start over--we know better.

Our own system of law--the system that the Founders studied, relied on, and incorporated into the Constitution, is derived from English Common Law. One of the distinguishing things about the Common Law is that the judge relies on previous cases, whereas in the Civil Law (used in most of the rest of Europe) the judge does exactly what you're proposing--looks at a code of laws and makes up his mind.
Before you say that maybe that's not a bad idea, bear in mind that the English Parliament is truly the "Mother of Parliaments" , and that historically Englishmen have always been freer than other Europeans. I don't think it's a coincidence that freedom developed most in the one place that demanded that the law rely on precedent.
Our revolution started with our forbears demanding the rights of Englishmen. In some ways the Brits may have oppressed us, but we really owe an enormous amount of our freedom to that English background. We also owe a lot of it to lawyers (even if sometimes it's painful to admit).

[SergeantsLady]

I've done a bit of checking too...from Constitutionfacts.com...and I was shocked to see
"Madison, “the Father of the Constitution”—the most important legal document in modern history—never received a law degree." On other sites, its referenced that Madison was quite knowledgeable of the law...

If the intent is to have as a Supreme Court Justice, an individual who'd evaluate cases based on the Founding Fathers' vision for the United States of America (as defined in the Constitution, Bill of Rights & Declaration of Independence, etc)...then based on the historical background of those "Founding Fathers" then Harriet Miers' education & professional experience would probably have been quite acceptable to them...except perhaps that she's a woman...

For those who oppose her nomination, I'd prefer they reference the "unknowns" about her, rather than belittle her intellect... I've known many brilliant Phds who can dance verbal circles around me, but cannot read a road map or change a light bulb. Somehow, an intellectually brilliant Supreme Court managed recently to rule it reasonable for private property to be seized strictly for the financial benefit of the "State"... apparently 5 of them could only see a forest & not a single tree.

[jf55510]

Are you calling Newt a liar?

Does it matter?

[born in the Bronx]

Almost no one had a law degree back then--they didn't exist. You "read law' with a practicing attorney and were then admitted to the bar. In fact, a few states, you can still become a lawyer this way, provided you pass the bar exam. That Madison didn't have a degree is meaningless--if you look up bio's of Supreme Court Justices you'll see that this was pretty common even in the early part of the 20th century.

(I know what you mean about brillian Ph.D's--I'm married to one. The fact remains that if I want to know about Ezra Pound, I'll ask my husband--not my insurance agent who's probably capable of reading a few good books about him).

[WOSG]

Her opeds ...


* Recommended Reading: Issues for the Multijurisdictional Lawyer where pro hac vice Admission Does Not Apply," 2001 Arkansas L. Notes 131 (2001) (pdf)
* "ABA Study of Multistate Practice on Fast Track," 36 Tennessee Bar J. 6 (2000) (pdf)
* "Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice," 11 Professional Lawyer 20 (2000) (pdf)
* "Texas Life Insurance Update." In Conference on Life Insurance Litigation: ALI-ABA Course of Study Materials: May 13-14, 1999. Philadelphia, Penn.: American Law Institute-American Bar Association Committee on Continuing Professional Education, 1999. (pdf)
* "Science, Business, or Art?" 56 Texas Bar J. (1993) (pdf)
* "As if the Funds Were Our Own ...," 56 Texas Bar J. (1993) (pdf)
* "What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate," 56 Texas Bar J. 210 (1993) (pdf)
* "Our Number One Priority ...," 56 Texas Bar J. 106 (1993) (pdf)
* "Focusing on the Positive," 56 Texas Bar J. 6 (1993) (pdf)
* "Time to Think," 55 Texas Bar J. 1112 (1992) (pdf)
* "Parts of the Whole Working Together," 55 Texas Bar J. 1012 (1992) (pdf)
* "Inclusion, Education and Mentoring," 55 Texas Bar J. 910 (1992) (pdf)
* "Justice for All - All for Justice," 55 Texas Bar J. 780 (1992) (pdf)
* "The Real Issue ...," 55 Texas Bar J. 664 (1992) (pdf)
* "Legacies of a Lawyer ...," 55 Texas Bar J. 548 (1992) (pdf)

I found this rather innocuous article lamenting turf wars in
law schools to be curiously pertinent to this debate (warning PDF):
* "What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate," 56 Texas Bar J. 210 (1993) (pdf)

http://www.law.umich.edu/library/news/topics/miers/articles/txbarj8.pdf

[WOSG]

"The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.'' - R. Bork

----

Cool! I always wanted my own personal nuke.

[Fenris6]

"I don't think she's capable of writing a dissenting opinion that won't be laughed at in Austin."

Yeah, where Ronnie Earle is a great judicial mind.

Exactly. Thanks for making my point

But seriously, aren't you tired of reading scathing dissents?

I doubt she has the mental fortitude to defend conservatism from the libs on the bench. She'll be an O'Connor in 2 years.

[AmishDude]

I doubt she has the mental fortitude to defend conservatism from the libs on the bench.

Yet another IQ test administrator.

[Fenris6]

Mental fortitude has nothing to do with IQ.

And why are you pinging your friends? Need backup? LOL.