Posted on 10/14/2005 7:05:23 PM PDT by jwalsh07
Harriet Miers opposition in Jones v. Bush was Sanford Levinson (BA-Duke, PhD-Harvard, JD-Stanford), the "W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law" at the University of Texas School of Law, author of over 200 articles in professional and more popular journals, co-author of a leading constitutional law casebook, who's also been a visiting law prof at Harvard, Yale, NYU, and BU." (info on Levinson courtesy of Beldar)
Perhaps Sander Levinson, a high powered legal beagle with all the right pedigree who got his butt kicked in trail court, the appeals court and at the SCOTUS where they denied cert:
"This is a person who has almost no experience doing constitutional law, and the one case she is involved with is on a subject almost no one has talked about, at a time of extraordinary partisan interest," he said. "The only thing to infer from this is that she's a good lawyer."
I'd say that Mr. Levinson was a bit understated. :-}
The link is a pdf file.
A good find for your case.
FYI and comment.
While I've got you all I'd like to make the case that judical hearings are high dudgeon and farce.
I think we can all take a principled stand here and make clear to our Senators that more information is better. I see nothing wrong with asking nominees opinions on cases that have already been decided. After all, the justices on the court already have their opinions on the record in those cases. Why should nominees not be required to offer theirs?
So, if not for Harriet Miers, we would not have Dick Cheney as vice president?
Works for me!
Good advocative writing in briefs is an art form. It is the most creative and rewarding thing I do.
As I said on the other thread, this case seems to have been handled by at least twelve lead lawyers from several Texas law firms, the Attorney General of Texas, and an Amicus Curiae. But I grant you that Miers has the top spot among the attorneys named for the defense.
I also saw, and praised, your earlier thread concerning important cases she has been involved in.
I don't think there's any doubt that she can coordinate and lead large numbers of bright lawyers in large cases. She was also chosen to act on behalf of Microsoft. What I don't think this actually demonstrates is whether she can write well, put her thoughts in order, or compose a Supreme Court decision in the strict constructionist spirit. She certainly doesn't write very well when she is doing it on her own hook.
Have you read any of the legal briefs she wrote and signed on cases where just her firm was involved? If not, and I have not, because they are not online, making a judgment on how she practices her craft is premature. Both the Microsoft and Disney cases where complex, and raised interesting issues, about which I learned something.
So far, they've been content to let everyone believe she has absolutely no experience.
Check your email, pony express just delivered something.
What about this case, or her arguments, should convince me that she adheres to a conservative judicial philosophy such as natural law jurisprudence?
Just keeping it real Cicero. Her opponent recognized her ability. I think that says something.
Torie says it was pretty straight forward but these days nothing is stright forward and one of the premier legal beagles in the country was her opponent.
GOOD post, 07.
A fair question, since Meirs was in effect arguing that the 12th means something other than what is says, and she defeated its words dimply by claiming the plaintifs couldn't show they were harmed.
In other words, the 12th is for all practical purposes dead by virtue of this case. Kennedy and Kerry can run together, and the 12th can't be used against them.
I don't know. She was also heavily involved in the Florida fiasco as an attorney. Perhaps they don't want to rile the dems?LOL
Perhaps because it raises yet another cronyism argument:
"So, you mean not only was she Bush's lawyer, but she got Cheney into the White House"?
Clearly, the only reasonable conclusion, is that Miers did not actually write the brief. She just isn't up to it. :)
You're a much better judge of the quality of a legal brief than I'll ever be.
You give me the straight poop back here on this thread and I'll accept your opinion.
I have to go now, the ark is floating down the hill.
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.