A Misguided Argument
I respect Professor Bainbridge as a man of formidable intellect. And there are legitimate arguments to be made against Harriet Miers. But I think some of his declarations set forth here are deeply unfair. In particular, I take exception to this:
Miers may well be a smart lawyer. But she went to the #52 ranked law school in the country and then headed up a Dallas law firm that one of my colleagues who practiced in Dallas tells me got big but was not in the first rank.
So what? Graduating from a "#52 ranked law school" doesn't mean that one has an intellect in the 52nd rank -- any more than teaching at what some misguided "school snobs" would consider a "second-tier" law school means that one has a second-tier intellect. Brilliant lawyers can come from any school -- and so can mediocrities.
Same goes for the crack about the law firm -- and given that Ms. Miers came through that firm in pre-sexual harassment, pre-flex and pre-mommy track time, the fact that she rose from being the firm's first female hire to its president tells me that her performance had to be at least as good as that of a regular partner in a firm deemed by those inclined to categorize in this manner as one of "the first rank."
He concludes by noting that, "Call me an intellectual snob if you want, but while I don't insist on Ivy League credentials, I do insist on documented high power thinking."
Well, all I can say -- based on my years at Princeton University and Harvard Law School -- is this: "Documented high power thinking" isn't always what it's cracked up to be. There were plenty of "high power" thinkers where I went to school . . . but even given the little I know of Miers, I would trust her with the Court before I would trust many of them.
In fact, one of the most notable traits I've observed in some of the so-called "high power" thinkers is a tendency toward intellectual vanity -- and it's a tendency that can be all too easily exploited by those who, to further their own agendas, want to see judges overstep the boundaries of their constitutional role.
Miers may well be a smart lawyer. But she went to the #52 ranked law school in the country and then headed up a Dallas law firm that one of my colleagues who practiced in Dallas tells me got big but was not in the first rank.
So what? Graduating from a "#52 ranked law school" doesn't mean that one has an intellect in the 52nd rank -- any more than teaching at what some misguided "school snobs" would consider a "second-tier" law school means that one has a second-tier intellect. Brilliant lawyers can come from any school -- and so can mediocrities.
Same goes for the crack about the law firm -- and given that Ms. Miers came through that firm in pre-sexual harassment, pre-flex and pre-mommy track time, the fact that she rose from being the firm's first female hire to its president tells me that her performance had to be at least as good as that of a regular partner in a firm deemed by those inclined to categorize in this manner as one of "the first rank."
He concludes by noting that, "Call me an intellectual snob if you want, but while I don't insist on Ivy League credentials, I do insist on documented high power thinking."
Well, all I can say -- based on my years at Princeton University and Harvard Law School -- is this: "Documented high power thinking" isn't always what it's cracked up to be. There were plenty of "high power" thinkers where I went to school . . . but even given the little I know of Miers, I would trust her with the Court before I would trust many of them.
In fact, one of the most notable traits I've observed in some of the so-called "high power" thinkers is a tendency toward intellectual vanity -- and it's a tendency that can be all too easily exploited by those who, to further their own agendas, want to see judges overstep the boundaries of their constitutional role.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:18 PM
5 Comments:
We shall see and learn more about Ms. Miers during questioning.
What I find most disheartening is the "infantilizing" her by continuing to call her by her first name. To insinuate a degree of familiarity with a professional woman, without there being an actual familiar relationship, is demeaning and infantilizes her career and intelligence. And people harping upon her physical appearence only degrades all women, as it reinforces the belief that woman are judged primarily on their looks.
Just Imagine everyone using "Hey..Clarence", "Well..John wore this today", "Anthony really should work on his makeup"
Though an evangelical Christian, I still threw a rather undignified hissy-fit on Monday. But since then, I've heard from James Dobson and Miers' minister, and in both cases have been reassured.
I don't buy into the need for another constitutional "genius" on the court. You don't even need to be a lawyer to read the Constitution and understand it. The nature of Harriet Miers' heart and motivations are the real concern.
George Bush knows her heart. The decision has been made. Did he choose the best?
I think its time for conservatives to choose the best course of action... and that is to get off our soap boxes and support this nomination. Its the smart thing to do.
I pray for this president every morning. This is where the faith part comes in.
A well-made argument for intellectual humility, Carol. Only an ivy-leaguer could have made the argument, so thanks!
What I find most disheartening is the "infantilizing" her by continuing to call her by her first name.
I feel the same way, and doubly so about those who refer to Secretary Rice as "Condi".
Carol, part of your attempt to build up Ms. Miers is disingenuous. Rising through a law firm with a "mommy track" doesn't take any extra effort if you're not a mommy! The administration that gave us Michael Brown and is trying to give us Julie Myers does not deserve our trust when it comes to unknown nominees for anything. Yes, the President's judicial appointments have been solid (though he hasn't fought for them like he could and should have), but they haven't been unknowns either.
Post a Comment
<< Home