Meanwhile, Beldar Actually Looks at Harriet Miers' Record As An Attorney
How refreshing: Rather than simply bash Miers for what we don't know about her, Beldar has actually done some research on the published court decisions for cases in which Miers served as counsel. Beldar's introduction to his work playfuolly notes:
Critics of SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers make much of the fact that she hasn't argued a case in the United States Supreme Court. And in fact, they've been pretty harsh, some of them, in characterizing her record as a practicing lawyer.
What's up with that? Anything to it? Well, heck, let's find out — shall we? Ever since Al Gore invented the internet, we've been living in the Information Age, so let's get some information!
A search on Ms. Miers' name, run in a Westlaw database containing both state and federal court reported decisions from Texas, pulls up 19 separate cases dating back to 1974 in which she's appeared among counsel of record.
Read the whole thing. You'll immediately know a lot more about Miers than Charles Krauthammer does.
posted by Lowell Brown at 5:42 PM
|
5 Comments:
The question really is quite simple. Do you send a rookie officer up against a General Rommel or do you send up a General Patton?
We have a stable full of Pattons. If we're concerned that some of our own (senate) soldiers might not fight, then I say start the fight and make them choose which side they're on. The voters will know how to deal with those who give aid and comfort to the enemy. The problem is that our Commander-in-chief won't let a Patton lead the charge, he prefers a West point cadet that he knows well. I wonder how many men will desert for the next wars in 06 and 08.
We're still dealing with Truman's mentality in Korea only now it's nuclear.
Posted by DL
DL, I find it interesting that prior to any hearings whatsoever on nominee Miers you feel justified in describing her in that most insulting manner. Miers is to Roberts as a West Point cadet is to Patton. Really?
Posted by The Hedgehog
I am not a lawyer, so I would need some help in translating Beldar's post. To me, it boils down to "Miers is a lawyer who has tried some cases." Which, to me, does not come as a terrible shock.
I just mentioned in a comment a post or three down the page, I haven't heard a single person defend Miers as the most qualfied person for the SC. If that is so, why are those who are not supportive of the pick so wrong in pining for the person who is the most qualified?
Does it boil down to us simply being told to settle for second best, or third best? With something as important as a Supreme Court seat, is this the best we can do?
With me, it's not so much the person of Miers, it's the person we're not getting.
Posted by Anonymous
I just got off of Lucianne commenters which had been very pro-loyalty. After reading the John Fund article they collapsed into the big shift.
This was all so avoidable! If Carl Rove okayed this move, I wouldn't hire him to predict how Boston is going to vote.
Posted by DL
I find no insult to Myers in my comment hedgehog. West Point cadets are a fine lot. I was merely exagerating the fact that we have a lot of judicial "Pattons" to do battle (and that's what is necesary to turn the tide against the liberal's last bastion)
Why does the fact that we need our best known quantity, and she's doesn't fit that bill, bother you so?
If your loved ones needed brain
surgury, wouldn't you seek out the best there is, with a proven track record to do the job, and not an intern or first year md ?
Post a Comment
<< Home