This article by Howard Bashman on the Harriet Miers nomination is excellent. (H/t: who else? Howard himself.) It is very measured, which is consistent with Howard’s very low-key, non-polemical approach to his fine blog. In light of that, it’s a little surprising how critical he is of the nomination:
More evidence of Senators’ discontent with the Miers nomination. Thanks to Allah for the heads up.
I have a quibble with one aspect of Stephen Spruiell’s argument, discussed in my last post. It’s rather arcane, so I’ll tuck it in the extended entry.
I recently saw such a mischaracterization in an article in the L.A. Times — and I simply shook my head and let it go. “How many times can I keep refuting the same claim?” I would think to myself. But Spruiell makes a good point:
If we don’t do something to stop this error from being repeated over and over in the media, it will simply become fact.
So, as a public service, I note that the L.A. Times, in a story titled Bush Critic Became Target of Libby, Former Aides Say, made the following inaccurate statement:
On his trip to Niger, Wilson found little reason to believe the Iraqis had sought the uranium, and on his return reported his findings to CIA officials.
That is flatly wrong. As Spruiell details, Wilson found convincing evidence that CIA analysts said supported the case.
Weary as I may get, I will try to keep Spruiell’s admonition in mind. Because we can’t let them make falsehoods into truths by incessant repetition without challenge. We just can’t.
P.S. More here.
There is now a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to opposing Harriet Miers. When you click on the link, you see Ann Coulter staring back at you, talking about Harriet Miers and sumo wrestlers. [UPDATE: It actually turns out there is a rotation of quotes in that spot. Also, I have fixed the link. Thanks to a commenter.] (Via Todd Zywicki.)
Meanwhile, John Fund says: “I believe it is almost inevitable that Ms. Miers will withdraw or be defeated.” That’s great — but can anyone name me a single Republican Senator who plans to oppose her?
UPDATE: The site has now included Patterico as a recommended blog. I think they should add Protein Wisdom as well.
If you don’t read this site on the weekend, you miss some of the best posts. Luckily, I occasionally do a handy guide on Mondays to summarize and link to the weekend’s posts:
- If you read just one post from the weekend, read this one. It looks at how the Supreme Court has used the phrase “proportional representation.” Turns out the Court has used the phrase in the exact same way as those much-derided pointy-headed scholars. The post is titled “Harriet Miers vs. The United States Supreme Court.”
- I have recently initiated a new series: Postcards from the Ledge. The series is a new semi-regular feature of this site, detailing revelations about Harriet Miers that have driven your gentle host out onto the window ledge. This weekend featured two new installments:
1) A post that notes Miers’s support for affirmative action set-asides; and
2) A post that responds to Paul Mirengoff’s assertion that the set-asides revelation was nothing new.
- I join N.Z. Bear’s online blogger poll by declaring unequivocally: I Oppose the Miers Nomination.
- I note Ann Althouse’s declared opposition to the Miers nomination, and ask whether Hugh Hewitt will notice.
- The Angry Clam asks: Hugh Hewitt: Will He Give Up? Of course not, Clam.
- I note the best evidence yet that Miers has the votes: Chuck Schumer’s claim that she doesn’t.
- Finally, there is a cool link to an awesome optical illusion.
Charles Fried observes the potential dangers of a Justice who can’t write:
[I]f the justice cannot write then someone is going to have to do that writing for the justice, and that will inevitably be the justice’s law clerks. Those law clerks almost to a person are wizards at untangling legal puzzles and masters at setting out the answers in precise if usually turgid and uncompelling prose. But they are also young graduates without wisdom, experience, or a constitutional mandate to help run the country.
You think that this is a theoretical concern? Think again. Time for another trip to my favorite Supreme Court book, The Brethren, to read about the horrific Thurgood Marshall — who was entirely dominated by his clerks, as these excerpts show: