10/19/2005

22 Responses to “Speculation”

1. That looks a lot like a post I had…hmmmm…

   Christopher Cross (354863) — 10/19/2005 @ 3:21 pm

   
   

2. Clam,

   Clerks are younger. The quality of the school (and ther marks) does indeed reflect their ability more than anything else cuz it’s largely what they’ve done.

   But after graduation, accomplishment itself provides a better indicator than do schools and marks, a direct measurement being better than a proxy.

   You can be impressed, or not, with HM’s accomplishments. I see her as adequate, but not as strong as some (albeit with a few pts in her favor as well).

   But for the younger crowd, where you have less info to work with, what else you gonna do?

   ras (f9de13) — 10/19/2005 @ 3:29 pm

   
   

3. We don’t really know much more about Miers’ abilities than we do about a clerk’s, though.

   Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 10/19/2005 @ 3:41 pm

   
   

4. So, now you sustain your rage by noting how unfair it is that anyone would think you elitist when in fact Miers will be elitist if she is confirmed and then if she hires clerks from the elite schools.

   Get a grip!

   She’s a terrible choice born out of a truly stupid process by a President who seems to have been willing to stick it to his greatest supporters in making an appalling political calculation to his own detriment. I wish fervently that she would withdraw her name.

   But this post’s point is pure whine. If you oppose her because she went to SMU Law, then you are an elitist. If you oppose her for any or all of the 10 or 20 good reasons to do so, then why grab at the second tier law school issue?

   Better to repeat a few really strong arguments against the nomination on a daily basis, if you somehow don’t feel whole until the daily dig is in, than to struggle mightily and come up as weak as this.

   Levans (940f34) — 10/19/2005 @ 5:05 pm

   
   

5. Personally I have no problem that she went to SMU (nor would I see it as a plus if she went to Harvard). But it’d be pretty darn hypocritical of her defenders to defend her (entirely predictable) choosing of clerks from only top-tier law schools.

   Christopher Cross (354863) — 10/19/2005 @ 5:19 pm

   
   

6. Levans-

   Because I’m a fucking snob, that’s why.

   Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 10/19/2005 @ 6:00 pm

   
   

7. Well we KNEW that. 😉

   Christopher Cross (093ea4) — 10/19/2005 @ 7:31 pm

   
   

8. I’d be interested in how she did. Was she top of the class at SMU? What were here LSATs? If she lacks intellectual rigor, how will she stand up to skillful tendentious arguments of activist opponents?

   TCO (3c2924) — 10/19/2005 @ 8:56 pm

   
   

9. She’d never get hired as a clerk. Her school is irrelevant. The Justices require a writing sample that doesn’t suck. She doesn’t have one.

   Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/19/2005 @ 8:59 pm

   
   

10. I think someone top of class at Texas Univ or Ohio State or whatever (in any ug or grad discipline) is likely quite competetive with top types at Ivy’s. There are some people who are sharp who go to lesser schools because of various reasons: money, blooming later, being close to gf, etc.

    TCO (3c2924) — 10/19/2005 @ 9:01 pm

    
    

11. The big difference with schools will be with the bottom of the class.

    TCO (3c2924) — 10/19/2005 @ 9:02 pm

    
    

12. So, Patrick et. al. tell me what are the qualifications then for a supreme court justice?

    I know the qualifications of a good dentist and writing is not one of them.

    And you say her writing sucks. Is that a primary qualification or an nomination spoiler? Flap doesn’t read this in the Constitution anywhere.

    How about character, integrity, veracity, life exeperience, business experience, drive etc.. Are these desirable qualifications?

    Do you feel that graduating from a tier 2 or tier 3 law school like ALL of you commenting did is an automatic disqualifier? BTW Flap graduated from a premiere tier 1 dental school (USC)and have taught there and does that buy me anymore qualification for appointment to legislative or executive office?

    Just some thoughts……

    Flap (cc77c4) — 10/19/2005 @ 9:56 pm

    
    

13. How about character, integrity, veracity, life exeperience, business experience, drive etc.. Are these desirable qualifications?

    All of which are admirable qualities in someone I’d ask to help me move my couch.

    They tell ya nada about what a person thinks about…say…federalism.

    Christopher Cross (093ea4) — 10/19/2005 @ 11:20 pm

    
    

14. CC,

    I agree that HM is still a cipher as to how she would judge. Forget about quality of prose – like, who cares? But quality of thought, yes, that matters.

    But seeing as she’s a stealth nominee, we’re really not gonna know much till she clears committee, at best. That leaves both the pros and cons in the lurch, and condescending comments won’t change that.

    You’ve got, from what I can see, a sharp mind. Never use your logic against wisdom, my friend. So far, we only know that we do not know. Everything else is open.

    Agreed?

    ras (f9de13) — 10/20/2005 @ 12:18 am

    
    

15. The only true “elitists” in the invidious sense of the term are the Miers -supporters.-

    There is a difference between elitism via accomplishment, which is good, and elitism via association (“noble” birth, nepotism, cronyism, etc.) which is bad. Miers’s nomination is an obvious example of the latter.

    Her supporters cries of “elitism” are the acme of bad faith, to say the least.

    Ernest Brown (63a3b4) — 10/20/2005 @ 2:39 am

    
    

16. From Chris Cross:

    How about character, integrity, veracity, life exeperience, business experience, drive etc.. Are these desirable qualifications?

    All of which are admirable qualities in someone I’d ask to help me move my couch.

    They tell ya nada about what a person thinks about…say…federalism.

    Flap’s Reply:

    Nice reply but understand where you are going.

    But, you didn’t answer the question.

    Flap will repeat it:

    So, Patrick et. al. tell me what are the qualifications then for a supreme court justice?

    Flap (cc77c4) — 10/20/2005 @ 4:23 am

    
    

17. “The big difference with schools will be with the bottom of the class.”

    No, the big difference is the middle of the class, as well as how many top students there are- there might be one or two truly capable ones at some bottom of the pack law school, but there’s probably fifty or so at a really first-rate one.

    There are dumbass people at every institution, indistinguishable from one to the other.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 10/20/2005 @ 5:56 am

    
    

18. Sine qua non,

    #12. And you say her writing sucks. Is that a primary qualification or an nomination spoiler?

    #14. Forget about quality of prose – like, who cares? But quality of thought, yes, that matters.

    Let’s get serious here. The demonstrated ability to write clear and persuasive prose is without question a fundamental skill for a SCOTUS nominee. Thinking clearly without the ability to express those thoughts on paper isn’t good enough by a country mile. The gibberish produced by Harriet Miers fails to meet minimum standards for either writing or thinking and, in my opinion, disqualifies her for consideration.

    She should withdraw forthwith. If that makes me an elitist, then I’m a thoroughgoing elitist, and damn the torpedoes.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/20/2005 @ 8:08 am

    
    

19. Does she have a long time secretary and admirer? Perhaps she could ask her to be her clerk.

    Agricola (62c122) — 10/20/2005 @ 8:49 am

    
    

20. Black Jack just described the difference between Bush and Clinton. “Thinking clearly without the ability to express those thoughts on paper isn’t good enough by a country mile”. This could apply to a Prez’s ability to speak. I claim Clinton would be a much better Prez using this standard.

    owl (e043f8) — 10/20/2005 @ 9:07 am

    
    

21. […] Flap over at Patterico posted the following in the comments section of Angry Clam’s post, Speculation: […]

    FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Harriet Miers Watch: Criteria to Be Nominated to the United States Supreme Court (baa0b4) — 10/20/2005 @ 12:46 pm

    
    

22. owl,

    Slick had trouble thinking, inadequate circulation, most of his blood supply failed to make it above the waistline.

    PS: Got any idea how owls came to be considered wise?

    Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/20/2005 @ 6:14 pm