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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[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.