More Chequer-Board on Miers
Pejman has some good posts on Miers at his fine Chequer-Board blog.
In this post he says something that I wholly agree with: Harriet Miers is not a dummy. She’s just not the best person for the job:
Harriet Miers is an excellent litigator and the kind of person that a law firm would turn to in order to be managed. No one doubts that she is intelligent and accomplished. But saying that does not mean that we can also say that she is Supreme Court material. Too many people conflate the two.
Precisely. And in this post, he says:
I have no problem believing that Ms. Miers is intelligent and accomplished. But she shows no evidence of having thought deeply about constitutional principles and theories of jurisprudence.
I admit I was disappointed that Roberts had no clear philosophy of constitutional interpretation, which is why I would have preferred Luttig to begin with. But, in addition to his stellar qualifications, Roberts had a paper trail showing a clear judicial philosophy: he believes in the rule of law and not the rule of judges. Even before his confirmation hearings, I had confidence in the kind of judge that Roberts would be, based on his memos and opinions. With the Miers nomination, I have nothing like that to go on.
Also on Pejman’s blog, someone named Leon H. has this blast from the past:
In Texas, television evangelist James Robison expressed his support for Mrs. [Sandra Day] O’Connor based on a conversation Tuesday with presidential counselor Edwin Meese.
A Robison aide said Meese told the evangelist:
”Sandra O’Connor thinks abortion is abhorrent and is not in favor of it. She agrees with the president on abortion. There was a time when she was sympathetic toward the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) movement, but the more she studied and found out about it, the more she changed her mind.
”She is very conservative … Sandra O’Connor assured the president that she was in agreement with him and she totally supports pro-family issues and the Republican platform.”
Substitute James Dobson for James Robison, and Harriet Miers for Sandra Day O’Connor. Kind of sends chills down your back, don’t it?
Look: someone who personally opposes abortion will get even more plaudits for writing a sanctimonious opinion stating that they must uphold Roe because they can’t rule according to their opinions. The New York Times editorial board will swoon. These personal opinions mean nothing in the absence of a strong judicial philosophy of respect for the rule of law, backed by a powerful intellect.
Your mistake, my friend, is in believing that “having thought deeply about constitutional principles and theories of jurisprudence” is a prerequisite for the job. If it is, then no one but law professors (and perhaps bloggers) will be eligible. God save us from that.
The question is whether one has the capacity to think deeply about constitutional principles” — forgive me, but “theories of jurisprudence aren’t anywhere nearly as important to court decisions as to law review articles. (And that’s not the only question, either. Character, ethics, energy, open-mindedness, common sense, respect for intended powers and roles of the different coordinate branches of government, respect for federalism, “modesty” (as Chief Justice Roberts defined that) — those are also important things.)
That one has not spent one’s entire career thinking about consitutional pricinples does not mean one is going to screw ’em up when one has the opportunity to apply them.
Beldar (737870) — 10/5/2005 @ 9:35 pmIt’s not just constitutional principles. There are all sorts of areas of the law handled at the Supreme Court, and a Justice must master them or the law will get confused.
Someone like Alex Kozinski (or John Roberts) would do better on that score than most of the Justices there now. I want to see the institution improved.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/5/2005 @ 9:41 pmPatterico,
I haven’t said it yet, but I should.
You’ve been writing some great posts this last week–very well thought out and composed.
OK, enough syrup. I know you don’t need it, but I am genuinely impressed.
Paul Deignan (d2fd7b) — 10/5/2005 @ 10:49 pmIt is a shame that Sandra O’Connor is not allowed to retire. She is getting tired, and she wishes to care for her ailing husband. She doesn’t want to be a dork by leaving the court with just 8 judges. It is likely she is wasting her time, and she won’t even be on the court at the time when her votes on these cases are counted. Compounding the absurdity is how Sen Boxer and Sen Specter have asked her to stay on for another year. What a gang of selfish goobers.
Shredstar (532850) — 10/5/2005 @ 10:53 pmWhat disturbs me is that the only issue being discussed is Miers’ opinion on abortion. Isn’t being a Supreme Court Justice more than this? What about eminent domain (Kelo, 4th Amendment), 2nd Amendment rights, privacy rights or lack thereof, &tc. et. al.? Where is Miers on all this. We don’t know. We just have Bush’s word that she is trustworthy.
jd watson (e27eeb) — 10/6/2005 @ 3:16 amOne of the major problems with getting quality people on the Supreme Court is the Senate Judiciary Committee. A senator is appointed to the Committee on his ability to hold a rabid partisan position and certainly not on his ability to actually hold a thought.
By the standards of who is currently sitting on the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers is more than qualified.
David L (b55a11) — 10/6/2005 @ 10:31 amWho do you think is the dimbulb on the Supreme Court, David?
Or did you mean the Senate Judiciary Committee (which, incidentally, I think you’re incorrect about- Sens. Specter and DeWine leap to mind).
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 10/6/2005 @ 10:34 amanyone know meier’s SATs or IQ scores? Roberts’s? Others?
TCO (b85fd9) — 10/6/2005 @ 11:58 pmAlmost irrelevant, in my opinion. The real question is her analytical and writing skills. As to the latter, it’s not looking good . . .
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/7/2005 @ 12:00 amIf you’re smart, you can learn. and there are some correlations…
TCO (b85fd9) — 10/7/2005 @ 10:16 pm