In some quarters, she’s credited with cleaning up; in others, with covering up. I can’t tell you who’s right.
My contact with the Texas law industry tells me with regard to Ms Miers that:
That she was president of the Dallas Bar Ass’n and the Texas Bar Ass’n means that she plays well with others, does not run with scissors and keeps her fingers away from her mouth.
She was a trial lawyer / litigator only in the sense that she had the second chair in the trial and did the brief and motion writing and drafted the instructions.
She is a follower, not a leader, and very much focused on process as opposed to result.
Given that she graduated from SMU law school and got a job with one of the old line Dallas business firms, she is bright. SMU is no prestige law school but it is so tradition dominated that only an exceptional woman could make it through – the tradition in the late 60s and early 70s was that the law is a man’s occupation. Same with the business bar in Dallas.
The accent I was complaining about is a Dallas accent. Minty and the guy who went to Texas (Dewey?) may be better positioned to talk about that. All I know is that to my Midwestern sensibilities it is like fingernails on a blackboard.
She is no oil and gas lawyer, rather she is your run of the mill Dallas business and corporation lawyer.
She is no Benjamin Cardozo. She isn’t even a Wiley Rutlidge (only Minty and I know who he was – there is a portrait in the Boyd Building). There is some danger that the likes of Justice Scalia will just lead her around by the nose.
If she is unexceptional, I could actually see Scalia offending her to the point of driving her away. He can be quite condescending to people he feels are his intellectual inferiors.
It may not be about what he knows so much as what he believes. Namely, his own views are fairly strongly anti-abortion, so he might be fine with a hardliner like Miers.
The Dallas Morning News has a pretty good profile from way back in 1991.
They already had a page about her in 2004.
Man, that’s silly. Especially given that there are so many other fights that we CAN win. Why convince the American people that we’ll simply oppose everything, knee-jerk.
Daily Show on the day Bush picked Roberts: “The Democrats are outraged at Bush’s Supreme Court pick John, they have been for weeks.”
And think about this: this lady is likely one of the best things Democrats could have hoped for. We could have gotten a Bork, except this time without the power to stop it (and if you really think we could have stopped it, then you are deluded). Instead, we get someone who is making the conservatives queasy and is far better than anyone we’d get even if we COULD get her booted and then rol the dice for someone else.
If you get to frame the issues, of course you can pretend that the country agrees with you. But you don’t get to frame the issues. And the American public self-identifies as more conservative than liberal. They need to be won over, not simply assumed to support every lefty cause that screechy people think is important.
“I’m Edward Miers, reckless brother of my sister Harriet!”
Here’s something that all of us should feel good about…
On The News Hour With Jum Lehrer (PBS) tonight, David Jackson, reporter for the Dallas Morning News said Ms. Miers told David Frum, Blogger and former White House Speech Writer, that George W. Bush is the smartest man she has ever known.
Are you sure that it wasn’t “the most ignorant, childish, and destructive fuck I have ever known”?
Coulda been a misquote.
Well, as Dave pointed out, Bush could’ve nominated Brownie. At least he has experience as an arabian horse judge.
You are painting a picture with which I am very familiar. Your last sentence would be exactly my guess.
A politician more than a lawyer. A person who emphasises process to make up for their lack in other areas.
As a politician, they will make decisions in accordance with what will advance them. Their decisions will follow those of the most powerful other members of the bench.
Yeah … except that there’s no real advancement possible for Meirs once she’s on the Court … highest court in the land, lifetime sinecure, etc. I suspect this is why so many judges turn liberal, or at least moderate, once they’re on the court. No wealthy benefactors or powerful politicoes to bark and roll over for any more.
Nah- there’s a much GREATER danger she’s an old-fashioned, genteel lady who’ll be swayed by that nice Mr. Stevens and that nice Mr. Kennedy and that nice Mr. Souter (who was so good to his mother). That Scalia, on the other hand, well, he thinks he’s so much smarter than everyone else, and acts so superior!
According to The Hill, Ken Mehlman is selling Miers to the GOP as someone who will make sure the courts and Congress don’t interfere with Bush’s management of the War on Terror:
They’d hate to put anyone on the Court who might actually insist that persons can’t be held indefinitely without some sort of due process. We already know how Roberts has ruled on this subject.
Here you have a legal lightweight who would have never gotten consideration for anything like this if she hadn’t been working closely with Bush for the past several years. One possibility that must be considered is that of her seeing everything through the lens of “how would this affect the President?” and voting that way. Through the end of 2008, at least.
I don’t want to promulgate stereotypes or anything, but a childless male in late-middle-age whose nephew lives with him and who is an accomplished church organist…well, kinda promulgates his own stereotype.
:dubious:
Doesn’t get out much, does she? At least on SCOTUS she should get to meet at least many men (and some women) who are smarter.
Your stereotype would be quite incorrect in this instance. But he is indeed a very good pianist.
The real problem here is that Meir has had plenty of contact with Rove and Cheney and she thinks Bush is smarter than either of them. Doesn’t argue for much intellectual ability on her part. As much as I hate Rove and consider him the greatest danger to American democracy on the planet, there’s no doubt he’s a friickin’ genius. Bush is a man of average intelligence at best.
Practicing before the Supreme Court and trial experience are about as closely related as archery and skeet shooting.
And, of course, sitting on an appellate panel (which the Supreme Court is), is absurdly easy. All you gotta do is ask questions of the attorneys if you feel like, or just sit there and take a nap if you feel like.
So, the “transition” difficulties is an utter myth. The difficulty of being a Supreme Court justice is that you must have great familiarity with a broad expanse of the law - something that is rare amongst practitioners, who tend to specialize. Being White House counsel is actually not a bad background, as it would expose one to many legal issues and disputes. Of course, being White House counsel does not tend to develop a judicial temperament, because one is always acting as an advocate and, worse, an advocate for one client alone.
Sua