Warren?
Uh.... whoops.... but you see an out: Yeah, Warren, you know, Warren Burger. Great save! Except who has Warren Burger as their favorite Justice? I mean, plenty of people adore and revere Earl Warren, who is widely considered one of the finest Justices in the Court's history. But Warren Burger? Come on. Well, ask her about that at the hearings. I think even the brilliant advocate John Roberts would have trouble piecing together a plausible answer if he were assigned the task of arguing that Burger was the greatest Supreme Court Justice of them all.
Really, do you have a clue why she said "Warren"? She must have meant Earl Warren when she said it, right? Because who would use the first name to identify a justice? The news report doesn't at all convey the sense that she might have been cracking a joke, and it's hard to picture her making a joke, particularly this joke, in this context. But why would she blurt out Earl Warren? Possibly because she knows he became a great justice after entering the Court with no judicial experience, and she is attempting to portray herself as capable of doing the same. But why would she name this immense liberal hero unless she didn't know the first thing about constitutional law? Even if she's secretly a liberal, this would not be the right time to roll out that information.
(Link via Bench Memos.)
UPDATE: Actually the Bench Memos post is an attempt to explain the blunder. This unsourced info is provided:
"Miers was asked about Justices she admired. She responded that she admired different Justices for different reasons, including Warren — interrupted by Senator Leahy — Burger for his administrative skills.So, maybe she was in the middle of saying the whole name and Leahy jumped in, and her point was that even Burger had some reasons why you could admire him. Except Burger is criticized for his administration skills: many of the recent Rehnquist obituaries emphasized what an improvement he made over Burger.
Reasonable people could ask whether Burger was a great administrator, but the comment is taken out of context by the Washington Post. Miers didn't express admiration for his jurisprudence."
पोस्ट्स
२० टिप्पण्या:
Althouse, you are venomous on this issue....
Who would trust any story relayed by Patrick Leahy anyways.
Sloan, the WaPo article says "In an initial chat with Miers, according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices." So it's not just Leahy's word. There are "several people." Although "knowledge of the exchange" doesn't necessarily mean they heard. But why would it be in Leahy's interest to distort this story this way? If he found out Miers loves Earl Warren, he should want to keep it under wraps and just talk to the Democratic Senators.
My passion on this subject is based on my concern for the judiciary. I do not want a mediocre or unqualified person to gain a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
Ahh. Words and statements taken out of context. Bill Bennett comes to mind most recently, but that's another issue.
I agree with Ann on this, since I think a SC justice must weigh their every word. After all, it seems that the law is based on interpretation of what is said and written - or heard by others.
Ms. Miers statement worries me that she is not as prudent as she should be, for the position she has been nominated for.
Her anonymous defender says Miers meant to say she "admired Warren Burger for his administrative skills". Since that explanation is preposterous, I'm inclined to believe the "several people" cited by the Post.
Burger's leadership of the Supreme court might have been poor, but the Chief Justice is also the leader of the federal judiciary.
Burger hauled the judiciary, kicking and screaming, into the twentieth century. It was a major fight and one he won, as much as anyone can ever "win" that sort of fight.
He also handled with surprising deftness at least three incipient scandals in the judiciary -- ak major responsibility of the "Chief" that is rarely noted.
It might be very well that he retired when he did. What had been strong leadership appeared to likely be overdone-- but he did retire when he did.
I admire his leadership, and I did not like him at all.
So yes, if Miers admired him for that I would concur--though it seems hard to know what went on with Leahy and Miers.
f
"My passion on this subject is based on my concern for the judiciary. I do not want a mediocre or unqualified person to gain a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."
Why not wait to hear what she has to say in the hearings? I am laughing at all the law professors who suddenly have a great concern for qualifications and wanting somebody with "experience", the best person for the job in there.
Now can you at least understand why some military-minded voters questioned Bush's qualifications as commander in chief? What goes around comes around, as they say. This is your pet issue, others were more concerned with war leadership.
What if she and Condi sat down before the hearings, and Harriet marches in there with some nice thigh-high leather boots? Didn't you say that a woman who knows how to look and dress proves something in how she handles herself? Or maybe I just read you wrong.
Qualified for the S.C. or not, enough with the "Harriet is a dunce" blather that seems to be coming out of some quarters of the blogosphere. She had to be smart enough to get where she is. I wonder if it's her religion or social status that underlies some of this.
Bush has appointed cronies and pals since Day 1. All of a sudden the law-career types don't think she's as qualified as one of their academic colleagues. Probably true. Many people by now are used to the best person not getting the job, and hoping the person who does get it can do well enough.
Also, it's interesting to me how the academic law bloggers seem to be looking to each other for cues how to respond to Ms. Miers. Wait until the hearings before you demand anything at least.
I'll leave this one to "King of the Hill":
HANK: I thought you were busy teaching girls to blow up basketballs. When did this turn into a desire to ruin wrestling?
PEGGY: Oh, give me a break. I don't see how having a girl on the team would ruin it. Did a woman judge ruin the Supreme Court?
HANK: Yes, and that woman's name was Earl Warren.
Charles Krauthammer's column makes a number of points with which I believe a several posters here (and Ann) would likely agree.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601468.html
Question, Ann: K. makes reference to cases related to the war on terror that would require Mier's recusal. Do you agree? What would be the criteria? I assume she makes the call herself? Any information you can give that would clarify this issue would be so appreciated.
From one of the commenters over at Volokh:
Googling "Warren Burger", the top hit yields this: "History will record that Warren Burger was one of the greatest chief justices," said federal appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig, a longtime friend who once clerked for Burger.
href="http://photo2.si.edu/burger/burger.html"
So maybe we should either discount all the nice things that are said about people after they're dead, or consider that people are gunning for Ms. Miers now and not being objective.
I just think that she feels uncomfortable with the whole questioning process, and so when asked the question she said "Warren", being the first thing that popped into her head. Kind of like the episode of Seinfeld where George gets a massage from a man, and when the massause asks George how he hurt his leg, George blurts out "Korea".
Of course, if my hypothesis is correct, methinks it doesn't reflect well upon the quality of nominee that our president has chosen.
I took twenty minutes out of my morning to e-mail Senators Lott, McCain, Kyl, Brownback and Coburn, asking them to treat this nomination with the deepest scepticism, and to apply the reverse-althouse test discussed yesterday.
Steven-
I just think that she feels uncomfortable with the whole questioning process, and so when asked the question she said "Warren", being the first thing that popped into her head.
A habit of speaking without thinking when under pressure? That's the kind of quality I want in a Supreme Court justice.
"....But why would it be in Leahy's interest to distort this story this way...."
The motive for distorting the conversation would be to embarrass the President.
Most of the statements coming from democrat senators these days are loaded with untruths. It's disgusting.
Truly bizarre comment by Miers.
Mary said: I wonder if it's her religion or social status that underlies some of this.
Wonder away, but the fact is that Miers had done almost nothing in her long career that recommends her specifically as a SC justice.
Bush has appointed cronies and pals since Day 1. All of a sudden the law-career types don't think she's as qualified as one of their academic colleagues.
So the legal world somehow, by their silence, permitted the appointment of cronies to crucial positions...and now, they're estopped - forbidden - from objecting to the biggest, most permanent crony selection of all, that directly affects the legal profession?
Pretty weak reasons for deferring to a mediocre, ethically conflicted nominee. The other variants of these arguments being cast around are hardly any better.
Thanks, IAM. I actually had a link to the Krauthammer piece in the original draft of this post, but then edited it down and dropped it, thinking I'd do a separate post, but have been too busy to get to it.
I think we can all agree that this provides the senate with an opportunity to do its job. Instead of all the speech making, etc BS that went on during Roberts hearings, let them ask good questions design to evaluate her qualifications (not her politics). I am fully prepared, as a Bush supporter, to accept the fact that she is a lousy choice and should not be confirmed.
I understand Ann's misgivings and I hope that Leahy, et al share her concern enough to put aside politics. I am not optimistic.
It'd really been unfortuante if she were going for a joke and said "Tawny" as in Tawny Scrawny Lion, but was interrupted after "Tawny". Then we could debate Harriet Miers -- racist.
btw -- I love Golden Books. I nominate Poky Little Puppy for SCOTUS
warren was never a judge i believe. maybe that was the comparison she was trying to make. but it would be a bad one.
Marge: Do you want your son to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or a sleazy male stripper?
Homer: Can't he be both, like the late Earl Warren?
Marge: Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!
Homer: Now who's being naïve?
this is not just us lawyers protecting our turf and applying a double standard; it is about separation of powers.
But zeimer, one of the explicitly enumerated powers of the president is to make judicial appointments!
It's up to the Senate now to do some serious advising before they consent, if they do. I'm hoping against hope that we get some substantive stuff out of the hearings, and not a lot of "bloviating."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा