Skip to comments.Jones v Bush Harriet Miers Lead Attorney 12th Amendment Case
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.
On or about July 21, 2000 Secretary Cheney declared his intent to return to his home state ofWyoming. Ps. App. 3. On or after that date, and before today, he traveled to Wyoming and registered to vote there, requested withdrawal of his Texas voter registration, voted in Wyoming in two elections, obtained a Wyoming driver's license (which, in turn, resulted in the voiding of his Texas license), and sold his Texas house. Id. at 4--5, 16; Ds. App. 2, 7. n13 He advised the United States Secret Service that his primary residence [**22] is his home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and he retired from employment with Halliburton. Ps. App. 4. He also requested that the United States Postal Service rescind a prior order on file in Teton County, Wyoming to forward mail to Dallas, Texas. Id. at 8. One of his four vehicles is registered in the state of Wyoming and is physically located there. Id. at 5.
What is this decision supposed to prove? That someone who could under those circumstances prove that Cheney is from Wyoming is a genius?
W doesn't speak very well when he's off-the-cuff. But, W is the kinda guy you'd like to have a beer with, his articulation be damned.
OTOH, John Kerry is impeccable in his speech and grammar. He's just so damned boring and duplicitous that his manner of speaking is incidental to his dreadful personna.
I'm a stickler for proper grammar, but, I'm just a software sales rep here in Texas. Miers writes in a stilted style, but she's in the White House.
I've met lots of folks who are great speakers, but write like third graders. Others write like Shakespeare, but can't utter a coherent paragraph.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinions are written masterpieces, but almost always bastardizations of the law.
The want the bar as low as possible when the hearing starts !
But I'm not gonna bang my head against any walls. And evidently your a wall.
Cool! Defend yourself for your next DUI........
There goes the "common man arguement"
Where are the briefs?
Never had one and doubt I ever will.
Yup, very complicated corporate law crap way above my pay grade. And Microsoft kept retaining her. Kind of craps in the bed of those arguing the woman is a mental midget, no?
Yes. We need ivy league lawyers like coulter, wills or kristol to understand the "common man" and spell argument...
Please read the article. No earth shattering cases. It refutes everything you say.
Tell me how a Corporate Lawyer is "the man on the street".
For those of you who may not have read the .pdf file.
No briefs are included in the documentation. It is thus difficult to judge what arguments on defendants behalf swayed the court in their favor. Ms. Miers was one of three counsels from Locke Liddell & Sapp representing then Governor Bush. Dick Chaney had two firms representing him from Dallas and Washington. Attorney General John Cornyn and two of his assistants represented defendent Ernest Angelo on behalf of the Texas Electors. Lawrence Kaplan, Pro se, represented the defendants. Kaplan also filed an amicus brief on the behalf of a citizens organization for the defendants.
LOL, that garbage refutes nothing I've said.
Meanwhile, back at One First Street, Ted Olson was at the Supreme Court representing George W. Bush in the case of Bush V. Gore.
I gave a link to the briefs further down the thread. A little slower on the trigger pardner.
One fatal flaw to bouncing Cheney is that Lieberman was not the plaintiff. He was the guy with a real interest in the matter. When the guy with a real interest in the matter is absent, that tends to color things for judges. Just a thought. But in the end that doesn't matter. The policy considerations in this mobile nation, interpretating an archaic and disfavored clause, the reasons behind it now totally dead, is just too much heavy lifting. I look forward to reading the briefs more carefully.
So was Miers. Uh oh, you didn't know that did you?
Tell me how some anonymous poster on a forum has the slightest clue about "common man" and/or SCOTUS nominees, other than than own opinion.......
Miers was the lead attorney. But don't take my word for it, email her esteemed opponent Sander Levinson and find out for yourself.
They don't trumpet Miers' involvement in this case because her argument was about as far from an originalist's understanding of the Constitution as possible. The Wall Street Journal had a frontpage story about this case either earlier this week or late last week.
In her defense, she was just zealously representing her client's interests, so I'm not sure how much anyone can take away from the position she took, however.
I like your questions. I would add:
Does International Law have any on your decisions and/or should it have any influence on the cases decided by any American court.
It absolutely does. Where are Miers originalist and Constitutional opinions? I say again. How is a Corporate Lawyer considered to be a "man on the street"?
You're pretty good. LOL
I give up, how?