Harriet Miers Speaks

[John Cole]

Well. almost. Irealize the sentences are taken out of context, but if she is confirmed, I don't see many rushing out to read her opinions based on this sampling of her prose style.

In Her Own Words
By DAVID BROOKS
Of all the words written about Harriet Miers, none are more disturbing than the ones she wrote herself. In the early 90's, while she was president of the Texas bar association, Miers wrote a column called "President's Opinion" for The Texas Bar Journal. It is the largest body of public writing we have from her, and sad to say, the quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian.

Of course, we have to make allowances for the fact that the first job of any association president is to not offend her members. Still, nothing excuses sentences like this:

"More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems."

Or this: "We must end collective acceptance of inappropriate conduct and increase education in professionalism."

Or this: "When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on issues of importance, the greatest impact can be achieved."

Or passages like this: "An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin."

Or, finally, this: "We have to understand and appreciate that achieving justice for all is in jeopardy before a call to arms to assist in obtaining support for the justice system will be effective. Achieving the necessary understanding and appreciation of why the challenge is so important, we can then turn to the task of providing the much needed support."

I don't know if by mere quotation I can fully convey the relentless march of vapid abstractions that mark Miers's prose. Nearly every idea is vague and depersonalized. Nearly every debatable point is elided. It's not that Miers didn't attempt to tackle interesting subjects. She wrote about unequal access to the justice system, about the underrepresentation of minorities in the law and about whether pro bono work should be mandatory. But she presents no arguments or ideas, except the repetition of the bromide that bad things can be eliminated if people of good will come together to eliminate bad things.

Or as she puts it, "There is always a necessity to tend to a myriad of responsibilities on a number of cases as well as matters not directly related to the practice of law." And yet, "Disciplining ourselves to provide the opportunity for thought and analysis has to rise again to a high priority."

Throw aside ideology. Surely the threshold skill required of a Supreme Court justice is the ability to write clearly and argue incisively. Miers's columns provide no evidence of that.

The Miers nomination has reopened the rift between conservatives and establishment Republicans.

The conservative movement was founded upon the supposition that ideas have consequences. Conservatives have founded so many think tanks, magazines and organizations, like the Federalist Society, because they believe that you have to win arguments to win political power. They dream of Supreme Court justices capable of writing brilliant opinions that will reshape the battle of ideas.

Republicans, who these days are as likely to be members of the corporate establishment as the evangelical establishment, are more suspicious of intellectuals and ideas, and more likely to believe that politics is about deal-making, loyalty and power. You know you are in establishment Republican circles when the conversation is bland but unifying. You know you are in conservative circles when it is interesting but divisive. Conservatives err by becoming irresponsible. Republicans tend to be blown about haplessly by forces they cannot understand.

For the first years of his presidency, George Bush healed the division between Republicans and conservatives by pursuing big conservative goals with ruthless Republican discipline. But Harriet Miers has shown no loyalty to conservative institutions like the Federalist Society. Her loyalty has been to the person of the president, and her mental style seems to be Republicanism on stilts.

So conservatives are caught between loyalty to their ideas and loyalty to the president they admire. Most of them have come out against Miers - quietly or loudly. Establishment Republicans are displaying their natural loyalty to leadership. And Miers is caught in the vise between these two forces, a smart and good woman who has been put in a position where she cannot succeed.

[lehighguy]

It's nice to see some of her actual writing. You think some GOP might turn.

[Zeno]

I like all the quotes. It solidifies my opinion that Harriet Miers is the perfect man for the job. Just as it should be.

In contrast to the bland, unbalanced, and prattling newspeak spewed out by Miers and splashed about in the first half of the article, in the second half; we are dished out the more eloquent and salubrious phases and cantor of Archangel David Brooks.

The follow paragraph is one I rejoiced over and found charming:

[ QUOTE ]
Republicans, who these days are as likely to be members of the corporate establishment as the evangelical establishment, are more suspicious of intellectuals and ideas, and more likely to believe that politics is about deal-making, loyalty and power. You know you are in establishment Republican circles when the conversation is bland but unifying. You know you are in conservative circles when it is interesting but divisive. Conservatives err by becoming irresponsible. Republicans tend to be blown about haplessly by forces they cannot understand.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well phrased propaganda is an art from. Archangel Brooks is a master.

I would have more to say but I have a baseball game to watch and books to read. And guns to clean.

Enjoyable post.

-Zeno

PS. No trip report from the Getty?

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Well phrased propaganda is an art from. Archangel Brooks is a master.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that propaganda? Who is he propagandizing for?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


and books to read. And guns to clean.



[/ QUOTE ]

And miles to go before I sleep.

[John Cole]

[ QUOTE ]
PS. No trip report from the Getty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who ya been talking to? Sssh, I took a small vacation.

Did you know that liberals all weigh exactly 147 pounds?

I figured she was a bit lightweight but once the hearings kicked in, her party would all file in line like good little Republicans and confirm her smoothly enough. Now I think it's about a coin flip.

If she doesn't pick up her rhetorical game above what these excerpts demonstrate, she's going to be a trainwreck. Especially coming after Roberts who was smooth as silk and never even had to refer to notes to cite the most obscure facts and arguments from every case they threw at him. It's going to be exciting to watch.

The only thing that could make it more interesting is if they dig up some info about her pubes on a coke can ala Clarence Thomas. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PS. No trip report from the Getty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who ya been talking to? Sssh, I took a small vacation.

Did you know that liberals all weigh exactly 147 pounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[BluffTHIS!]

Even though at this point the white house has said Miers won't withdraw, perhaps Bush/Rove are far more clever than their own party and the dems give them credit for being in this. If at a later date due to resistance on both sides of the aisle Bush lets Miers withdraw, then he could easily nominate one of the most contentious woman judges on the bench and claim any opposition following that to Miers was a clear example of sexism by the democrats after the republicans voted for Ginsburg by a wide majority. I am not stating they are doing this, but that it would be politically masterful if they were and that had been their intention all along.

[bholdr]

Disclaimer: i am liberal, pro-choice, etc...

here: i liked Roberts a lot, but mostly because he was so obviously competent, deserving, intelligent, etc...

I strongly disaprove of the meirs nomination. there must be dozens of more deserving, experienced, accomplished, knowlagable, QUALIFIED judges and lawyers out there. how pissed do you think they are right now?

weather a liberal or a troglodyte, it's most important to me than anything else that a supreme court justice be COMPETENT and QUALIFIED... and i think there's just no way to tell with miers, she hasn't had a position that would reveal her competency, even if she is. We should be looking for the MOST distuinguisted jurist in the country to fill this spot.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
And miles to go before I sleep.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and miles to go before i sleep.

fantastic post, BF.

[natedogg]

We are doomed.

natedogg

[bholdr]

just out of curiosity, who's your favroite justice, natedogg?

lemme guess... thomas?

[ericd]

I think you are "confusing the facts with the criteria". I know that means nothing. However, said with conviction, it is rarely challenged.

You are missing one important point. This is a woman who said GWB is the smartest person she has ever met. Aren't you expecting too much?

[zipo]

Justice Thomas is the key here - this thing will resolve itself after he finds a pubic hair on Mier's coke can.

[ QUOTE ]
it would be politically masterful if they were and that had been their intention all along.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think it would be political stupidity of the highest order. If their party turns on them and defeats her, it would position Bush as a much lamer duck than he already is. Every Republican who thought that Bush still held sway/power would see his failed nomination as evidence that it was time to abandon ship and fend for themselves. Every other personal project of Bush's would be weakened. Any advisor of his who would help torpedo his other projects for this risky gamble would be an idiot in my opinion.

Unless they were secretly working for the Democrats. Now that would be a brilliant undertaking and from the looks of Bush's many recent missteps is looking more plausible by the minute. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[zipo]

Bush is like the guy with the deepest stack late in a big buy-in nl tournament who believes in his invulnerability, and who donks off his stack with a quick succession of boneheaded plays, progressing from overweening pride to impotent rage to frustration to desperation.

America needs to be especially careful in guarding the Constitution now. Wounded animals, especially animals on tilt - can be extremely dangerous when cornered.

[elwoodblues]

I had a long drive this morning and was thinking about the Harriet Miers nomination (on my way to Middle-of-freaking-nowhere, IL.) Could the nomination be a smart political move, with no real down-side for Bush?

Scenario 1: Meirs gets confirmed. Bush wins. He gets a nominee who he can trust, who is a friend, and who holds similar beliefs (presumably) as the President.

Scenario 2: Meirs gets a No vote, now Bush appoints the most conservative person he can finds and re-starts the media campaign about how the liberals aren't letting him exercise his constitutional powers. How they are unfair, etc., etc. Bush wins as he would probably be able to pass through a more conservative nominee because Miers was rejected and the liberals wouldn't be able to politically reject two consecutive supreme court nominees.

I haven't thought it through, but it made sense at 5:30 this morning in the middle of corn-country.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I had a long drive this morning and was thinking about the Harriet Miers nomination (on my way to Middle-of-freaking-nowhere, IL.) Could the nomination be a smart political move, with no real down-side for Bush?

Scenario 1: Meirs gets confirmed. Bush wins. He gets a nominee who he can trust, who is a friend, and who holds similar beliefs (presumably) as the President.

Scenario 2: Meirs gets a No vote, now Bush appoints the most conservative person he can finds and re-starts the media campaign about how the liberals aren't letting him exercise his constitutional powers. How they are unfair, etc., etc. Bush wins as he would probably be able to pass through a more conservative nominee because Miers was rejected and the liberals wouldn't be able to politically reject two consecutive supreme court nominees.

I haven't thought it through, but it made sense at 5:30 this morning in the middle of corn-country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elwood,

Scary as the thought may be, I had almost the exact same train of thought. It basically started with me thinking "What is the best thing I can say about Harriet Miers as a SCOTUS nominee". But , since I am a genius, you clearly must be too, and thus we are right. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Meech]

Qualifications, Schmalifications.

It's Roe v. Wade or bust. Everything else is irrelavent.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
since I am a genius, you clearly must be too, and thus we are right

[/ QUOTE ]

Your logic astounds me...where can I subscribe to your newsletter /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush is like the guy with the deepest stack late in a big buy-in nl tournament who believes in his invulnerability, and who donks off his stack with a quick succession of boneheaded plays, progressing from overweening pride to impotent rage to frustration to desperation.

America needs to be especially careful in guarding the Constitution now. Wounded animals, especially animals on tilt - can be extremely dangerous when cornered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sure hope everyone else is appreciating that this post was written in a thread about Harriet Miers' bad prose.

[Utah]

I think he nomination is so out of line that it is hard it. However, I look at the reasoning of a lot of the current justices and I find it hard to believe that her reasoning could be any worse.

And, I like her normination much better that the black market baby buying Roberts. I would have assumed buying s black market baby would have disqualified you for the supreme court.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
just out of curiosity, who's your favroite justice, natedogg?

lemme guess... thomas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Got it in one.

He only gets better with time too. His recent term was stellar, dissenting on both Raich and Kelo. Thomas is the best. Scalia is nothing but a fair-weather federalist, but Thomas, that is a man with principle.

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
So conservatives are caught between loyalty to their ideas and loyalty to the president they admire.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously nonsense.

There are no conservatives who admire President Bush. No conservative who actually believes in conservative ideals can fail to despise the man who has abandoned every conservative principle on the list.

natedogg

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Thomas, that is a man with principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you include sexual harrassment as one of his principles, then I would agree.

-ptmusic

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thomas, that is a man with principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you include sexual harrassment as one of his principles, then I would agree.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

It's time to take off the "I Believe You Anita" bumper sticker.

natedogg

[Bill Murphy]

They weren't "black market babies" per se. Story goes, Mrs. Roberts' relatives in Ireland knew of two pregnant girls who were planning on getting abortions elsewhere.

Girls have babies, Roberts's adopt both &amp; pays both mothers' "expenses". Catch is, foreign adoptions are illegal in Ireland. So the mamas fly to Costa Rica(?) for the handovers, or maybe the births happened there, too.

Roberts &amp; his wife walked a fine line here, no question. But he and his wife prolly have a combined IQ closer to 400 than 300 and nearly 50 years of combined legal-political experience at the highest levels. No way they didn't dot &amp; cross everything.

The reasons why Dem staffers &amp; liberal reporters dropped this story like it was radioactive should be obvious. Ditto for the promised "investigation" by Euro authorities. Interesting how all the bloggers wouldn't touch it either. Roberts is gonna be running the sheeew for the next 30+ years. I imagine, nice guy that he is, he'd make a terrible enemy. And everybody's got skeletons.

Note how these adoptions took place during the Florida recount debacle, which is likely why he wasn't directly involved. Too bad; woulda made his confirmation hearings much more interesting.

[ACPlayer]

I totally agree.

[Cyrus]

Stanford Wong's BJ21 Newsletter quotes a couple of newspaper articles on Miers' relation to Gambling. She worked as the senior gaming regulator in Texas, and served as chair of the three-person Texas Lottery Commission from May 1995 to March 2000. In that capacity, Miers resisted attempts by the Christian Right to outlaw casino gambling.

In fact, her nomination might grate on the critics of gambling, some of whom, notably Rep. Frank R. Wolf, R-Va, have extended their opposition to an assault on tribal casinos, sovereignty and the recognition process. One key evangelical Christian figure, James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, was a member of the National Gaming Impact Study Commission, and has been visibly conflicted in supporting Miers.

Her resume in gambling might emerge as the main stumbling block for her confirmation -- by the Right.

Indian Country article (http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411713)

[John Ho]

Thomas is a guy who makes up his mind before he hears arguments. That would explain why he NEVER asks questions.

The guy is a politician when he should be a judge.

[BluffTHIS!]

Why Justice Thomas doesn't ask questions from an online article:

"Some of those same journalists have criticized Justice Thomas for not asking questions during oral arguments. He said, "I think if we invite a person in, we should at least listen to what he has to say." In words that sounded close to what I'd once heard from a Catholic priest, he said that you should really listen if you are listening to a person. If you are thinking of your next question as the person is speaking, some of your attention is not on listening to the person.

He further explained that he had not asked questions in high school, in college, or in law school. "When I was asked a question, I answered it, but I did not ask questions." He explained that he had grown up in a rural area in the South where there remained a major influence of an African language. As he grew up, many in that area spoke a mixture of English and this old language. As a consequence, while he learned to speak standard English-only, he would edit his speech and his words in his brain before speaking. This encouraged him to do more listening than speaking."

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
Irealize the sentences are taken out of context, but if she is confirmed, I don't see many rushing out to read her opinions based on this sampling of her prose style.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, you realize that your criticism of her intellect is flawed, and then go ahead with it anyway. You infer that her opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court will be empty generalizations because of a few sentences she wrote in the Texas Bar Journal (because, that's the same thing).

So in your mind, a Supreme Court Justice should never have written an uninteresting sentence.

I just don't understand why Democrats aren't running this country right now!

[BluffTHIS!]

Shaun,

You are trying to apply reason to democratic political rhetoric. They don't mix.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Irealize the sentences are taken out of context, but if she is confirmed, I don't see many rushing out to read her opinions based on this sampling of her prose style.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, you realize that your criticism of her intellect is flawed, and then go ahead with it anyway. You infer that her opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court will be empty generalizations because of a few sentences she wrote in the Texas Bar Journal (because, that's the same thing).

So in your mind, a Supreme Court Justice should never have written an uninteresting sentence.

I just don't understand why Democrats aren't running this country right now!

[/ QUOTE ]

Those sentences aside, it's pretty easy to see that Miers is not likely to be of the "intellectual giant" breed, which is the point.

[BluffTHIS!]

As if the great majority of justices both now or in history have been. Typical democrat ploy of trying to raise the bar when they aren't the ones doing the nominating.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just out of curiosity, who's your favroite justice, natedogg?

lemme guess... thomas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Got it in one.

He only gets better with time too. His recent term was stellar, dissenting on both Raich and Kelo. Thomas is the best. Scalia is nothing but a fair-weather federalist, but Thomas, that is a man with principle.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Right on...nate...

I like Scalia for his writing and humor, but Thomas is the perfect example of what a justice should be. The man would fight with everything in him if there was a constitutional amendment for gay marriage, prostitution, abortion whatever. The key would be that it was a constitutional amendment.

I love Thomas. But, Robert could be my favorite now.

-Gryph

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
I had a long drive this morning and was thinking about the Harriet Miers nomination (on my way to Middle-of-freaking-nowhere, IL.) Could the nomination be a smart political move, with no real down-side for Bush?

Scenario 1: Meirs gets confirmed. Bush wins. He gets a nominee who he can trust, who is a friend, and who holds similar beliefs (presumably) as the President.

Scenario 2: Meirs gets a No vote, now Bush appoints the most conservative person he can finds and re-starts the media campaign about how the liberals aren't letting him exercise his constitutional powers. How they are unfair, etc., etc. Bush wins as he would probably be able to pass through a more conservative nominee because Miers was rejected and the liberals wouldn't be able to politically reject two consecutive supreme court nominees.

I haven't thought it through, but it made sense at 5:30 this morning in the middle of corn-country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scenerio 3: Bush has just given Roberts 2 votes on the Supreme Court. Miers is a reasonably blank slate when it comes to constitutional law with conservative leanings. She seems to be resourceful in aligning with powerful driven leaders. She gets her constitutional education from Roberts and plays ball. She seems very adaptive to people. Bush really likes Roberts and now he has given him 2 votes.

-Gryph