An Embarrassment
This is embarassing:
The Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers suffered another setback on Wednesday when the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her to resubmit parts of her judicial questionnaire, saying various members had found her responses “inadequate,” “insufficient” and “insulting.”Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee chairman, and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat, sent Ms. Miers a letter faulting what they called incomplete responses about her legal career, her work in the White House, her potential conflicts on cases involving the administration and the suspension of her license by the District of Columbia Bar…
The letter asked Ms. Miers to respond within a week. Mr. Specter said he had scheduled hearings on her confirmation to begin Nov. 7, overruling Democratic objections that they did not have enough information to evaluate her because of her scant record on constitutional issues before joining the White House. Both Mr. Specter and Mr. Leahy said they would not set any deadline for the conclusion of the hearings.
“If the questions are not answered or their answer is incomplete, as they have been, then it’s going to be a long hearing indeed,” Mr. Leahy said.
Veteran senators and aides said they could not recall another occasion when the committee had sent back a nominee’s answers to a questionnaire because they were incomplete. Former Senator Daniel R. Coats of Indiana, the administration’s appointed guide for Ms. Miers on Capitol Hill, defended her answers in the Senate questionnaire as a work in progress.
Of course, it makes me sexist and elitist to note this. Yesterday, Judge Bork, who knows a thing or two about being treated unfairly and probably would be inclined to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they deserved it, discusses some of the problems with this nomination:
There is a great deal more to constitutional law than hostility to Roe. Ms. Miers is reported to have endorsed affirmative action. That position, or its opposite, can be reconciled with Christian belief. Issues we cannot now identify or even imagine will come before the court in the next 20 years. Reliance upon religious faith tells us nothing about how a Justice Miers would rule. Only a commitment to originalism provides a solid foundation for constitutional adjudication. There is no sign that she has thought about, much less adopted, that philosophy of judging…By passing over the many clearly qualified persons, male and female, to pick a stealth candidate, George W. Bush has sent a message to aspiring young originalists that it is better not to say anything remotely controversial, a sort of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” admonition to would-be judges. It is a blow in particular to the Federalist Society, most of whose members endorse originalism. The society, unlike the ACLU, takes no public positions, engages in no litigation, and includes people of differing views in its programs. It performs the invaluable function of making law students, in the heavily left-leaning schools, aware that there are respectable perspectives on law other than liberal activism. Yet the society has been defamed in McCarthyite fashion by liberals; and it appears to have been important to the White House that neither the new chief justice nor Ms. Miers had much to do with the Federalists.
*** Update ***
‘Ms. Attention to Details’ has had her law license suspended. Twice:
In other words, the person the president has nominated for the Supreme Court — the person Bush said is the single most qualified person in America for this position — has had her law license suspended twice.Also note that one of the principal talking points for Miers is her allegedly legendary attention to detail. Think Progress reminds us that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, among others, said Miers would do well on the high court because she is “very detail oriented” and “very meticulous.”
Except, that is, when it comes to keeping her law license up to date.
Discuss.
Cyrus
I don’t know exactly what this is, but how many people, when they’re the only candidate for a job, get disqualified by the application? It looks like this is just a case of the sharks smelling blood and going after every weakness, real or perceived. No one wants to be the last to jump on the anti-Bush bandwagon, right?
But then, I read about this on dailykos a few days ago.
...
I guess we can knock “detail-oriented” off her ever-shrinking list of qualifications.
Half the “Bushism” quotes you see attributed to him, you would assume were made up if they were attributed to most other people. But you don’t, because you’ve heard of so many more and you’ve heard him make at least a couple. Same deal here – it’s not the first time. And this is a woman who thinks he’s brilliant. If Leahy is quoted as saying Miers misspelled her own name, I’d give him the benefit of the doubt.
docG
Interesting. Having Robert Bork explain the proper way to become a Supreme Court justice is rather like having Michael Dukakis giving instructions on how to become president.
George Bush has lived his whole life as an undeserving, underprepared beneficiary of the largess of Daddy’s chronies. Why is anyone surpised at the Miers nomination? It simply replicates the established patterns of his own life. The message to (and from) George Bush? I’ll set you up in a job way over your head, but you pay me back when I have need of you. So nice that honor and integrity has been restored to the White House. Blech.
Pug
My professors never sent my “questionaires” back. They always just gave me a D.
Mr Furious
The Baseball Crank (a hardcore Bush apologist, and a lawyer) has been reluctant to step all the way out of line and throw Miers overboard, but in his latest post, Mier’s poor writing and proof of her general ineptitude is pushing him to the tipping point.
And that’s before this latest embarrassment.
Tim F
Folks who’ve been keeping up probably know that Miers had her license suspended once in DC. I bet you didn’t know that she had it suspended twice.
Miers quickly replied, writing that she would comply with the new request. She also wrote that “as a result of an administrative oversight,” her Texas law license was suspended for 26 days in 1989 because of unpaid dues.
This is the woman for whom the White House’s primary defense is that she has a meticulous attention to detail.
metalgrid
Yet the society has been defamed in McCarthyite fashion by liberals; and it appears to have been important to the White House that neither the new chief justice nor Ms. Miers had much to do with the Federalists.
Oh please, the Republicans didn’t even have enough backbone to defend Janice Rogers Brown’s Federalist views, instead claiming that she wouldn’t act on them at her confirmation. Which leads me to conclude that neither the left nor the right, particularly likes federalist views, but at least the left is honest about it while the right lies about it.
Steve S
LOL!
Harriet Miers has just been “Borked” by Robert Bork.
I always thought it interesting how the Right decided to whitewash Robert Bork’s history, and totally glossed over how the Saturday Night Massacre played into his not being confirmed.
Davebo
Just ask Archibald Cox, Elliot Richardson or William Ruckelshaus.
Do people really pay this idiot to teach their children?
Davebo
Steve
Apparantly a lot of folks thought the Saturday Night Massacre involved Chevy Chase and John Belushi.
John Cole
He fired them. We know the history.
As opposed to this:
Who pissed in your wheaties this morning?
Well- if I am talking about Watergate in my nonverbal courses, I would be an idiot.
Davebo
Well, it’s hard to tell given your comments.
You obviously feel that Bork should have been confirmed, for reasons I can’t understand.
But for those of us who are forced to deal with reality, Bork had much bigger problems than a bad beard and odd haircut.
John Cole
Not wanting someoneone confirmed, thinking they are qualified to be confirmed, and thinking that they were treated unfairly are not mutually exclusive positions. And I am the idiot?
Davebo
Well John, you could have cleared up the issue. Instead you chose to dance around the margins.
If I was seriously interested in your opinion on the matter I suppose I should have chosen dental school.
Geek, Esq.
She’s the gift that keeps on giving.
Kudos to Harry Reid into bamboozling Bush into thinking this was a good idea.
Don
Yes, hard to imagine why he might not take seriously any attempts to have a civil discussion with you.
Davebo
Seemed like a reasonable question given his Bork comment.
And you’ll notice he’s still ignoring the question at hand.
Speedkill » As qualified as can be
[...] Miers’s qualifications are piling up (via Balloon Juice): The Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers suffered another setback on Wednesday when the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her to resubmit parts of her judicial questionnaire, saying various members had found her responses “inadequate,” “insufficient” and “insulting.” [...]
Andrew J. Lazarus
embarrassment has two rs
John Cole
LMAO.
Retief
When did the Federalist Society become the Elks? How does it make law students aware that there are respectable perspectives on law other than liberal activism, without taking any positions? Is embracing “originalism” not a position? Their own web page claims that their goals are to promote “an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law.” Surely we can be honest enough to admit that the Federalist Society does exist to promote a particular (and particularly minimalist) view of the role of courts and judges and the proper framework for interpreting the constitution. That most Americans don’t share that view is not the fault of the White House, or HM. But either way this isn’t an apolitical fraternal organization.
Tim
Just as a point of history, Archibald Cox, Elliott Richardson and William Ruckelshouse all argued strenuously with Bork, telling him that he must not resign with the rest of the group, because that would leave the Justice Department with no institutional memory at all, and total chaos. Bork then kept his job by obeying Nixon’s orders and firing Cox. Bork was not a bad guy in the Saturday Night Massacre, and Cox and Richardson (don’t know about Ruckelshouse, but probably him, too), always thought Bork had a high degree of integrity.
Tim F
Heh.
james richardson
what an interesting spot bush is in. will bush’s legendary stubbornness hold out now that certain conservatives are against her nomination? will he literally have to come out and say she will overturn rvw to get her elected, thereby stating how she would decide a case before it’s brought to the court? will miers take a bullet and humbly remove her name from consideration, to be replaced by (sarcasm) bork, just to piss off the liberals and give the conservatives the cultural showdown they feel is their right as payback for putting W into office? tune in next week!
p.s. who cares how many R’s embarrrrrrassment has in it? this is political discussion not the spelling bee.
John S.
Particularly on this website. Cole is a notoriously bad speller.
SayUncle » Blog Archive » Pull the plug on Miers already
[...] Miers failed to pay her dues a couple of times and had her license suspended twice. She can’t run a spell check on her questionnaire. And her grammar may be less than stellar. I would think a Supreme Court judge may need to pay attention to details. [...]
Krista
I did notice that the link to this site from Salon the other day had a quote from you that had a misspelling. Personally, John, I don’t care how you spell, as long as I can make out what you’re saying. However, even if it’s not fair, spelling errors do damage your credibility to a certain degree. So you might just want to watch out for that, depending on what your ambitions are for this site.