WP: Miers Faces Tougher Time Than Roberts in Hearings

[Pirate Smile]

Miers Faces Tougher Time Than Roberts in Hearings

By Peter Baker and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 9, 2005; Page A01

In a room at the Justice Department this summer, Harriet Miers listened silently as young lawyers playing senators threw question after question at John G. Roberts Jr. at a secret practice hearing, or "murder board." She watched as he rattled off Supreme Court cases and, as one participant put it, "artfully dodged" inquiries he did not want to answer.

Now it's her turn. After an unexpectedly rocky first week, Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court appears likely to hinge on her performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee at hearings that probably will open early next month, according to strategists in both parties.

The question is how much she learned from Roberts's murder boards and how much constitutional law she can master in cramming sessions over the next several weeks.

Unlike Roberts, who made a career arguing before the high court and commands the nuances of obscure rulings, Miers never practiced that sort of law, nor did she, in her various behind-the-scenes roles at the Bush White House, demonstrate the sort of skill at public performance that Senate hearings demand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/08/AR2005100801459.html

[Pirate Smile]

1. more

'"Her tentative response to a question during a courtesy call on Capitol Hill last week seemed revealing to some observers. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, asked her to name her favorite justices.

"Warren," she answered, according to people familiar with the conversation.

Leahy was taken aback. Did she mean Chief Justice Earl Warren, the bête noire of conservatives who presided over an activist court? Or maybe his successor, Warren E. Burger, a moderate conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade and rarely makes any scholar's list of top justices?

Burger, she answered."

[jayctravis]

6. She'd better get used to doing a little better than one-word answers.

Unless it's "yes" or "no".

[radfringe]

2. give smirk-boy a break

she was the best he could find...amongst his cronies...

at least she's a lawyer - he could have appointed someone who's judicial experience amounted to awarding a blue ribbon at a country fair pie-baking contest.... :evilgrin:

[Hekate]

3. Maybe she should bring donuts and coffee. That was her strong point...

... at her church. So they said. Nice lady.

Just not Supreme Court material.

It's been great fun to listen to the conservative intellectuals tear their hair out and wring their hands this week. They want nuance, for god's sake. They want the ability to independently argue cases and persuade the other justices. They don't want someone to follow in Clarence Thomas's footsteps and just copy Scalia's votes without the ability to make a cogent argument on his own.

What? You mean to tell me being born-again isn't the be-all and end-all of qualifications for public life and government service? It was supposed to be enough for being made president. Having a little change of heart?

:popcorn:

Hekate

[susu369]

4. I'm repeating myself

but this isn't just "what was bu$h* thinking by nominating her" - it is what type of person is she to accept the nomination in the first place. Harry must know she's not qualified for the position; however, her visions of glory just lead her on. Hubris: check.

Doesn't say much for her character, IMHO.

[kostya]

5. It will be interesting, but I predict she'll get approved anyway. The

Repugs are just going to have to cross their fingers and hold their noses and vote for her, else the consequences are that their President is finished.