No Wimp
Here is a bio of Harriet Miers.
No one is sure about Ms. Miers' philosophy (at least outside The White House, and maybe not even there) -- which is an understandable cause of unhappiness. But I think perhaps some of the criticism that is emanating from some D.C. conservatives is not only frustration with an opportunity wasted, but may also be a function of the fact that she is not a member of the Harvard/Yale/Supreme Court clerk/elite D.C. legal insider axis. (Don't get me wrong -- I love some "elite D.C. legal insiders." Some of my favorite people from law school fall in this category, though not the ones I'm referring to here).
The fact is that Harriet Miers graduated with a math degree in 1967. She rose to a number of prominent positions (several female firsts) in Texas -- not an easy task, given that she came up in the pre-flex time, pre-sexual harassment era.
She can't be a wimp. That much, at least, is clear. And just because she's not an insider in conservative elite judicial circles doesn't mean she's presumptively unqualified. The real question, however, is whether she's a judicial conservative. Appointing them seems to be important to the President, and he knows her well. So a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth may turn out to be as premature as the full-throated liberal opposition to David Souter.
No one is sure about Ms. Miers' philosophy (at least outside The White House, and maybe not even there) -- which is an understandable cause of unhappiness. But I think perhaps some of the criticism that is emanating from some D.C. conservatives is not only frustration with an opportunity wasted, but may also be a function of the fact that she is not a member of the Harvard/Yale/Supreme Court clerk/elite D.C. legal insider axis. (Don't get me wrong -- I love some "elite D.C. legal insiders." Some of my favorite people from law school fall in this category, though not the ones I'm referring to here).
The fact is that Harriet Miers graduated with a math degree in 1967. She rose to a number of prominent positions (several female firsts) in Texas -- not an easy task, given that she came up in the pre-flex time, pre-sexual harassment era.
She can't be a wimp. That much, at least, is clear. And just because she's not an insider in conservative elite judicial circles doesn't mean she's presumptively unqualified. The real question, however, is whether she's a judicial conservative. Appointing them seems to be important to the President, and he knows her well. So a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth may turn out to be as premature as the full-throated liberal opposition to David Souter.
3 Comments:
I assume (and hope) that the president has gotten to know Mier's jurisprudence through her work as White House counsel and therefore he knows she will be in the Scalia-Thomas mold, as he promised. He may even know her views of cases likely to come before the Court. Whether the rest of us will get to know this is unclear: attorney-client privilege may preclude the release of documents revealing her jurisprudence.
Upside: a nominee with little reason for Middle America, or the right, to oppose.
Downside: we have to really trust the President.
Of course she may turn out to be a solid conservative, and I hope she does. But even if she votes the way I would on every case for the next 15 years (and why, for the love of actuarial tables would you put a 60 year old on the court!) that will not change the fact that, compared to many other men and women, she is painfully underqualified for the job.
Will the Dhims be able to mutter, "extreme positions, out of the main stream, doesn't represent America!" at a nevered married, public school fledged, SMU graduated woman with Evangelical credentials? The President has shoved a sock into their mouths. OK, she is not Luttig. We won't have the Great Marianas Turkey-Democrat Shoot just yet. Winning by outmaneuver rather than outgunning is still winning. And the Dhims must yield ground. So quiver those arrows,or at least point them at the other side.
Post a Comment
<< Home