On the Harriet Miers Fiasco
"You know, she's a very gracious and funny person," says Joshua B. Bolten, former deputy White House Chief of Staff whom Harriet Miers succeded in 2003, about Miers. "I was racking my brain trying to think of something specific... She is a very good bowler. For someone her size, she actually gets a lot of action out of the pins."
Then it hits him. "What I think made Harriet so successful as staff secretary was that she was a diligent and honest broker, able to digest very complicated material rapidly, and produce a fair resolution for the president, so that the advice that was going in to the president was fully and fairly presented."
David G. Leitch, former deputy White House counsel, also showers praise upon Miers. "You might think anybody who was preparing something to go to the president would already have taken care to see that it was perfect. But Harriet always scrubbed them one more time, and managed to come up with things that people hadn't seen or thought of before, from the broad wording of an issue to errors in punctuation." Well, of course, the ability to strictly scrutinize punctuation is one of the top 7 qualifications to become a Supreme Court justice.
But controversy looms over her ability to properly dot the i's and cross the t's. David Frum, a former White House speechwriter explained that perhaps, this overbearing emphasis on proper punctuation brought along inefficiencies, saying, "It wasn't that she didn't do the job right, but the way she did the job rules her out of being a person you would think of as capable of handling this enormous responsibility."
So what are my thoughts on Harriet Miers?
Well, Harriet Miers was never a judge before. Honestly, I would prefer some judicial experience in my nominees. But it is definitely not unprecedented, so I suppose that is ok. So what about her philosophy on constitutional law? Well, that is not really known. Quality legal experience? Miers has never argued a case before the Supreme Court. I guess, maybe, perhaps, that might be sort of partly okay ... a bit. But I would have preferred at least some hardcore experience as a lawyer - at least if she never was a judge before.
So what did she do? Well from 1972 (2 years after graduating from law school) to 2001, she worked for Locke, Liddell, & Sapp. She was the first female employee, and later became the first female president. During her time as president, she was sued for aiding a client in defrauding investors, and the firm settled a $22 million. Beautiful.
Oh and, she has basically been George W.'s biggest fan and bitch for the past 16 years. Which, I suppose, is nice and all for him, but it doesn't do a whole lot for me having her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
So there has been this huge controversy over her qualifications right? Peopl thought - hey no judicial experience, no hardcore legal experience, no hardcore reputable law school experience, no legal academic experience - so who is this woman?? Man, I really love the administration's response. Obviously, Bush & Co. decide to come out and defend their woman. So, first, what do they do? They note the following. Fine, Miers didn't go to Harvard or Columbia or Yale or something. But she did go to the 3rd best law school in all of Texas! No joke - they were completely serious about this.
Wow. Really!? Third best law school in all the land of Texas! Yay! How wonderful for me!
Look, I don't mean to be a name-hugging ass here or anything. And definitely many fantastically smart people come out of non-name schools. But here's the deal - those fantastically smart people have done something worthwhile. And because they are deemed "worthy", they get the acclaim. Here, I see a woman who really doesn't have a super stellar legal resume. And I'm just thinking, fine, at least give me one indicator that you are among the top 9 legal minds in the country. Or you know what - at this rate - screw top 9. What about some indicator that at least you are in the top 90. Or 900. Please. Some indicator - at least a legit academic background if not anything else!
I'm just saying (and this is by no means comprehensive), take a quick look at at least how we could have justified something like this by percentages if she had some pedigreed law school background. Most of these guys, except for the U Chicago guys, are/were on the U.S. Supreme Court:
Harvard (Blackmun, Roberts, Souter, Scalia, Breyer, Kennedy, Brennan, Powell, Frankfurter, Burton)
Columbia (Ginsburg, Reed, Douglas, Stone, Cardozo, Hughes, Blatchford, Jay)
Yale (Thomas, White, Stewart, Fortras)
U Chicago (Scalia [Prof], Coase [Nobel Prize Winner], Mikva)
Stanford (Rehnquist, O'Connor)
Northwestern (Stevens, Goldberg)
Berkeley (Warren)
William Mitchell (Burger)
University of Maryland (Marshall)
UT Austin (Clark)
Ok. Then we get to Southern Methodist University's Law School, which the administration proudly argues to be the 3rd best law school in the great state of Texas. Wonderful. Obviously Miers is the only alumnus that one can name from the law school. What about the university at large? Well, here. I can name 4. Cathy Bates, Laura Bush, Patricia Robertson (yes, the Home Improvement mom), and Lauren Graham (Lorelai on Gilmore Girls). Damn, we are going to be in awsome shape, aren't we?
So it is a lot like how Larry Miller put it on Real Time with Bill Maher the other day. Screw Harvard, Yale, or Columbia. She went to the 3rd best law school in all of Texas. I mean, that is like being the 4th tallest person in Japan! .......yah, it doesn't really count for much.
So the administration gets flack for that. Pressured, they turn to the one thing that they know could help the reputation of their star woman. As an undergraduate, she majored in mathematics! Again, I am not kidding. This is actually what they argued to justify her "intellectual capacity". Well, aw shucks. She was a math major at SMU. She must be a genius!
Hey guys, wait a minute. I'm a math major at Columbia University. We have a top 7 mathematics program. By the administrations standards, that must be justification enough of my abilities to help warrant my nomination to the Supreme Court! Oh wait, maybe I should obtain a quick law degree and get sued for defrauding people first. Hm?
I absolutely love that both the right and the left are pounding Bush on this. This is really really really damn funny. I'm really curious as to whether or not she will get confirmed. And if she doesn't, are we going to see a crazy right-wing nut instead? But if she does, is she going to be ostracized by the other judges? Boy this will be interesting.
Then it hits him. "What I think made Harriet so successful as staff secretary was that she was a diligent and honest broker, able to digest very complicated material rapidly, and produce a fair resolution for the president, so that the advice that was going in to the president was fully and fairly presented."
David G. Leitch, former deputy White House counsel, also showers praise upon Miers. "You might think anybody who was preparing something to go to the president would already have taken care to see that it was perfect. But Harriet always scrubbed them one more time, and managed to come up with things that people hadn't seen or thought of before, from the broad wording of an issue to errors in punctuation." Well, of course, the ability to strictly scrutinize punctuation is one of the top 7 qualifications to become a Supreme Court justice.
But controversy looms over her ability to properly dot the i's and cross the t's. David Frum, a former White House speechwriter explained that perhaps, this overbearing emphasis on proper punctuation brought along inefficiencies, saying, "It wasn't that she didn't do the job right, but the way she did the job rules her out of being a person you would think of as capable of handling this enormous responsibility."
So what are my thoughts on Harriet Miers?
Well, Harriet Miers was never a judge before. Honestly, I would prefer some judicial experience in my nominees. But it is definitely not unprecedented, so I suppose that is ok. So what about her philosophy on constitutional law? Well, that is not really known. Quality legal experience? Miers has never argued a case before the Supreme Court. I guess, maybe, perhaps, that might be sort of partly okay ... a bit. But I would have preferred at least some hardcore experience as a lawyer - at least if she never was a judge before.
So what did she do? Well from 1972 (2 years after graduating from law school) to 2001, she worked for Locke, Liddell, & Sapp. She was the first female employee, and later became the first female president. During her time as president, she was sued for aiding a client in defrauding investors, and the firm settled a $22 million. Beautiful.
Oh and, she has basically been George W.'s biggest fan and bitch for the past 16 years. Which, I suppose, is nice and all for him, but it doesn't do a whole lot for me having her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
So there has been this huge controversy over her qualifications right? Peopl thought - hey no judicial experience, no hardcore legal experience, no hardcore reputable law school experience, no legal academic experience - so who is this woman?? Man, I really love the administration's response. Obviously, Bush & Co. decide to come out and defend their woman. So, first, what do they do? They note the following. Fine, Miers didn't go to Harvard or Columbia or Yale or something. But she did go to the 3rd best law school in all of Texas! No joke - they were completely serious about this.
Wow. Really!? Third best law school in all the land of Texas! Yay! How wonderful for me!
Look, I don't mean to be a name-hugging ass here or anything. And definitely many fantastically smart people come out of non-name schools. But here's the deal - those fantastically smart people have done something worthwhile. And because they are deemed "worthy", they get the acclaim. Here, I see a woman who really doesn't have a super stellar legal resume. And I'm just thinking, fine, at least give me one indicator that you are among the top 9 legal minds in the country. Or you know what - at this rate - screw top 9. What about some indicator that at least you are in the top 90. Or 900. Please. Some indicator - at least a legit academic background if not anything else!
I'm just saying (and this is by no means comprehensive), take a quick look at at least how we could have justified something like this by percentages if she had some pedigreed law school background. Most of these guys, except for the U Chicago guys, are/were on the U.S. Supreme Court:
Harvard (Blackmun, Roberts, Souter, Scalia, Breyer, Kennedy, Brennan, Powell, Frankfurter, Burton)
Columbia (Ginsburg, Reed, Douglas, Stone, Cardozo, Hughes, Blatchford, Jay)
Yale (Thomas, White, Stewart, Fortras)
U Chicago (Scalia [Prof], Coase [Nobel Prize Winner], Mikva)
Stanford (Rehnquist, O'Connor)
Northwestern (Stevens, Goldberg)
Berkeley (Warren)
William Mitchell (Burger)
University of Maryland (Marshall)
UT Austin (Clark)
Ok. Then we get to Southern Methodist University's Law School, which the administration proudly argues to be the 3rd best law school in the great state of Texas. Wonderful. Obviously Miers is the only alumnus that one can name from the law school. What about the university at large? Well, here. I can name 4. Cathy Bates, Laura Bush, Patricia Robertson (yes, the Home Improvement mom), and Lauren Graham (Lorelai on Gilmore Girls). Damn, we are going to be in awsome shape, aren't we?
So it is a lot like how Larry Miller put it on Real Time with Bill Maher the other day. Screw Harvard, Yale, or Columbia. She went to the 3rd best law school in all of Texas. I mean, that is like being the 4th tallest person in Japan! .......yah, it doesn't really count for much.
So the administration gets flack for that. Pressured, they turn to the one thing that they know could help the reputation of their star woman. As an undergraduate, she majored in mathematics! Again, I am not kidding. This is actually what they argued to justify her "intellectual capacity". Well, aw shucks. She was a math major at SMU. She must be a genius!
Hey guys, wait a minute. I'm a math major at Columbia University. We have a top 7 mathematics program. By the administrations standards, that must be justification enough of my abilities to help warrant my nomination to the Supreme Court! Oh wait, maybe I should obtain a quick law degree and get sued for defrauding people first. Hm?
I absolutely love that both the right and the left are pounding Bush on this. This is really really really damn funny. I'm really curious as to whether or not she will get confirmed. And if she doesn't, are we going to see a crazy right-wing nut instead? But if she does, is she going to be ostracized by the other judges? Boy this will be interesting.
posted by arun at 6:45 PM
5 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
who is this incomptent woman and what is she doing in our government
-hermann
Nice post.
I think you focus a little too much on SMU. I agree that the caliber of the law school does not compare to the ivy league, but railing against SMU to the level that u do isnt helping your case too much more than you're already making. You're beating the dead horse to an extent.
That being said, I think in response to Raghu that this is a political set-up (as usual) by the only man with a penis in this administration. Rove is still working his political schemes, and he's got some balls with this one. At the point where we have Anne Coulter (who by the way won the title of like biggest adams apple or something like that) and conservatives harping on Miers, This is exactly what Rove is doing to get Miers to fail, and then introduce some justice who is more to the right of miers.
The impact is as follows:
1. Conservatives and Liberals bitch and moan about Miers.
2. Miers gets rejected by the Senate for incomeptency, and on political grounds b/c she wont support either side, nor can she be a real judge
3. Bush spends winter recess "debating" for whom he will nominate
4. Rove e-mails the new candidate to Bush as an X-mas present, and come january we get someone like Bill O Reilly nominated. Okay, a bill o reilly who has a law degree from harvard and probably worked for halliburton.
5. Conservatives are happy that bush lived up to his promise that he will nominate some of "the caliber of scalia" or something like that
6. Liberals bitch and moan as usual but are too weak to do anything about it, and
7. The new, more conservatively minded judge gets confirmed, because the conservatives are going to jump at the chance to put anyone more conservative than miers in, so this allows Rove to pick up the liberal/conservative vote
8. Rove gets convicted of leaking and sent to jail, but is going to be pardoned by Bush
9. We all continue to get fucked.
-Abhi
my dad thinks that she's a lesbian. don't ask.
It's a no brainer. You oppose her. Period. It doesn't make any sense to support her. The argument that supporting her would mean avoiding a even worse judge is flawed. Why isn't she the "even worse" judge? Smart judges that make logical, while ideologically closer to the Right, decisions are preferred to dumb people. I believe we can win a fight if Bush nominates a right-wing nut. I would take the cost of our losing over an incompetent crony.
Post a Comment
<< Home