Asymmetrical Information

I think it has become fairly obvious that she is not qualified to be on the court. Regardless, as a terrible speller (but a good writer) myself, I should be somewhat sympathetic to placing commas in the wrong place.

What I am not sympathetic to is the idea that this was submitted to the Judiciary Committee and it did not occur to her to have someone proof her work. As an attorney, I never file anything with anyone without having someone look at it and proof it, not just for spelling, but for clarity. Oft-times I know what I'm trying to say, but have not made that clear to my reader. It happens to anyone who has ever written a 40 page brief.

If Meirs is sloppy at this point in the process, what is she going to be like when she's on the Court? Bush should withdraw her name now.

As I am not a conservative, I think I can fairly state the following: John Roberts is great. Terrifically qualified, exceptionally bright, liked and respected all around. I think he will be an excellent Cheif Justice even though I disagree with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Now, is Bush implying that there is not one conservative Judge out there, who is either female or a minority (which was obviously part of the reason he choose her), who would be better for the position than Meirs? That is even more appalling, and untrue.

One of the functions of a Justice of the Supreme Court (as opposed to a Super-legislator of the O'Connor Court) is to engage in reasoned discourse; argumentation based upon logic, facts and deduction.

In my not so humble opinion, Harriet Miers would not have lasted a day on any of several newsgroups in the 1990's, and would be laughed out of any of several weblogs today, because she can't engage in logical discourse.

Here's a thinking experiment for diehard Republican Miers supporters: imagine that this same woman, with the same record, were nominated by Hillary Clinton. Would you support or oppose her? Think hard before replying...

Anti-libertarian conservatives might think that Meiers was better than they had ever expected from Hilary - which might be just what Democrats think about Meiers as a Bush appointee. (At least until and unless they manage to pin her down about overturning Roe vs. Wade.)

My biggest problem with the passage quoted isn't the questionable grammar and sophomoric writing, it's what she said: That it was OK for the city council to knowingly vote for an unconstitutional ordinance and let the courts sort it out. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Any legislator who votes for an unconstitutional ordinance is a lawbreaker.

Of course, what would you expect from a Bush appointment? He believed McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional, but he signed it anyway.

I inadvertently ran a paraphrase of Meiers and my comments together. Try this:

My biggest problem with the passage quoted isn't the questionable grammar and sophomoric writing, it's what she said (paraphrased): it was OK for the city council to knowingly vote for an unconstitutional ordinance and let the courts sort it out. BZZT, WRONG. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Any legislator who votes for an unconstitutional ordinance is a lawbreaker. It's grossly cynical buckpassing to do wrong and expect the courts to correct it.

Markm raises a good point; even if Miers did write well in a technical sense, at least some of what she's written is simply appallingly stupid. Would she have gotten past her own vetting process, were the few writings found so far to be sanitized and 'white-room' examined? Eh, that's speculation.

What's clear is that the Administration has chosen this as some kind of loyalty test, and guess what? Some folks have more loyalty to the Constitution (what is left of it) than to any given occupant of the White House...

I dislike Robert Bork for several reasons, only one of them having to do with an "ink blot", but his article in the WSJ today strikes several accurate chords. I read it during lunch, and do not know if it is available online to nonsubscribers or not.

You know, I've seen this sort of thing before. My theory is that old people are just bad at writing. I don't know quite what it is. Maybe the mind just slows down with age and the subtleties of grammar become too much to cope with when writing at a normal speed. All I know is that I've seen more supposedly educated people in their sixties or so who can neither spell nor string two words together despite the supposedly superior educational system of the days of their youth.

Of course, this isn't Miers worst problem. She strikes me as such an arch-conservative I just don't see how she could possibly represent mainstream America on the bench. I suppose you could argue that if mainstream America can't be bothered to vote, it shouldn't get any representation, but I still think elected officials have a responsibility to try to represent as many people as possible, not just those who vote, so I guess I'm hoping Congress sends this one back.

Kate is right about the proof-reader, but I blame Miers's handlers as much as her. We are witnessing the disintegration of an administration. Basic errors -- large and small. The "small" ones often leading to the larger ones.

I would prefer that it not happen as there are important issues that may not be resolved as a result. I especially hate to think what such a development would mean to the situation in Iraq. Here, Megan will probably tell me that I'm being dramatic and overreacting. Then again, given her post this morning, perhaps not.

Speaking of drama, high school English students take note. What is happening is as good an example of "tragedy" as you'll find in literature. (And no, this doesn't mean I am a supporter of Bush who would be saddened by his downfall, though, as I say, I do find it all lamentable.)

MB

Cashmoney wrote:

My theory is that old people are just bad at writing. I don't know quite what it is. Maybe the mind just slows down with age and the subtleties of grammar become too much to cope with when writing at a normal speed. All I know is that I've seen more supposedly educated people in their sixties or so who can neither spell nor string two words together despite the supposedly superior educational system of the days of their youth.

Oh, I dunno, I've read some things written by geezers that were pretty good. It could well be that Miers simply has not written that much; what we do not practice, we do not get/stay good at. Her thought processes concern me more than her admittedly turgid writing...

"I think it has become fairly obvious that she is not qualified to be on the court"

Reply: "The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court."

Just because people don`t like the idea of her being on the bench is beside the point.

If you don`t like her and have reasons then give them, but to say she`s not qualified isn`t valid.

The Constitution doesn`t have a standard so whos standard of qualifications do we use?
Mine? Bushs? Michael Moores?

Qualification is in the eye of the beholder.
The only ones who seem to be really pissed about this are the lawyers.
Should we let the lawyers set the standards?
God forbid.

My theory is that old people are just bad at writing.

Mine is that people are just bad at writing. In a typical college English class, about half of the students, excluding foreigners, will produce painfully bad papers, and most of the remainder will write passably at best.

What you see on the Internet, where almost everyone seems to be good at writing, is a combination of selection bias and feedback. Those who are good at writing tend to like it (or vice-versa), so they contribute regularly and get even better. Conversely, bad writers tend not to like writing and are often made fun of when they do try to contribute.

I've had a theory for a while now that the popularization of e-mail, blogs, message boards, and other vehicles for written communication may someday bear fruit in the form of a generation of superior writers. I have my doubts every time I see "ur" or "omg," but time will tell, I guess.

I just left a comment over at the Volokh Conspiracy post:

Jim Lindgren et alia,

I took advantage of the link to Harriet Miers' questionnaire and checked it out for myself.

It's true that her response explaining the constitutional relevance of her tenure on the Dallas City Council gets a little clunky in one paragraph. But my reaction was, and is, so what?

If this is the best evidence one can post to show that Harriet Miers is guilty of not writing and thinking clearly, then I'd have to say that Ms. Miers must be a pretty good writer and thinker. There is no reason why anyone should be disturbed by a few commas out of place in this questionnaire, or by the other minor style gaffes that have been mentioned in this comment thread.

Harriet Miers is a smart, tough lawyer with excellent credentials. She has a long and distinguished career in both the private and public sectors. Conducting "gotcha" proofreading of her 57-page questionnaire is misguided and petty. Please come up with substantive criticisms of Ms. Miers' nomination, and leave the silly stuff to less capable bloggers.

I would think that one qualification to be a Supreme Court judge would be having been a judge somewhere else first, like in Federal Circuit court. After all, lawyers are supposed to be advocates for one side regardless of justice; judges are supposed to be advocates of justice. The two are quite different things.

Matthew Goggins, well put.

Well, the real story is that Harriet Miers was likely selected because, being old, female, and with virtually no experience or publication record, she has very good odds of being confirmed. This isn't my opinion, this is the results of an analysis of the "track record" of over 1,500 judges starting in 1977, by John Lott.

Apparently the more clearly qualified a judge is, the longer it will take to get confirmed...

Matthew and Thorley,

I disagree with you both on almost everything, but I generally respect your opinion on issues and understand why you feel the way you feel. In this particular case, I can't and I don't.

Perhaps Ms. Meirs is an excellent attorney, but being an excellent attorney does not qualify someone for one of the nine seats on the third branch of government. Being highly organized does not qualify one either. Nor is being a buddy of the President.

Perhaps the fact that she has no judicial experience, no constitutional law experiece, limited public record (most of which will not be released), and an overwhelming loyalty to the President could be overlooked if she were an excellent writer who clearly and carefully put her thoughts to paper.

Perhaps neglecting to maintain property in Texas, forgetting to pay bar dues a few times, or saying one thing to Spector in private and another in public are forgivable if she were able to clarify her opinions and thoughts with clear, concise writing. But she does not.

For heaven sakes, Ann Coulter, a woman I hoped I would never agree with, thinks she's appalling. George Will thinks she's awful. This is a woman who does not seem to understand that if you swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, even in a lowly city council possition, then you should not vote for something you know will be thrown out by the courts because it is blatently unconstitutional.

Really fellas, what are you smoking?

In other news, President Bush today announced that he was naming his personal tax attorney to chair the SEC, his limo driver to head the NTHSA, the pilot of his corporate jet to be in charge of the FAA, his personal physician as Surgeon General, the head of his Secret Service detail as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a guy who once loaned him some money in college to replace Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank system.

Hmmm..that last one doesn't sound so bad...

Not that anyone is still reading this thread, but the fracas within the GOP is clearly between two groups of people:

* Those loyal to an individual, who say "Trust the President" no matter what.

* Those loyal to an idea, who say "The President is wrong, trust the Constitution".

I could go on at great length, but...

Comments are Closed.