WP: Senators Assail Miers's Replies

[Ancalagon the Black]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902402.html

Senators Assail Miers's Replies, Ask for Details

By Charles Babington and Michael A. Fletcher

Washington Post Staff Writers

Thursday, October 20, 2005; A01

The top two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday complained about the written responses they received from Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers this week, and warned her to expect tough questions from Republicans and Democrats alike when her confirmation hearing begins Nov. 7.

Barely concealing their irritation during a 35-minute news conference at the Capitol, Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) called the lobbying on Miers's behalf "chaotic," and said the answers she provided Monday to a lengthy questionnaire were inadequate. "The comments I have heard range from incomplete to insulting," Leahy said.

They sent Miers a three-page letter asking for more detailed responses in several areas, and Specter said he has asked the Bush administration for more documents concerning her work as White House counsel. Specter said Miers must provide "amplification on many, many of the items" included in the first questionnaire.

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. On Monday, Miers disclosed that her D.C. law license was briefly suspended last year because of unpaid annual dues.

Announcing plans to start the hearing Nov. 7 despite Democrats' request for more time, Specter told reporters: "This is going to be an unusual hearing where I think all 18 senators are going to have probing questions." The panel has 10 Republicans and eight Democrats.

The two committee leaders -- both of whom voted to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice last month -- said they are bothered by accounts of telephone conference calls in which supporters of Miers reportedly have assured conservative activists that they will be happy with her political views on abortion and other subjects.

"I think it's been a chaotic process, very candidly, as to what has happened, because of all of the conference calls and all of the discussions, which are alleged in the back room," Specter said. "We're looking into them."

A recent Wall Street Journal column reported that on Oct. 3, the day President Bush nominated Miers, two Texas judges who know her conducted a conference call with conservative leaders and assured them she would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade , the landmark Supreme Court ruling giving women the right to abortion.

"A good part of what I'm talking about as chaotic is not the White House," Specter said. "What I'm referring to are all of the forces which are at work out here commanding media attention and commanding public attention."

Leahy said: "We're working hard to carry out our responsibilities, not have this thing taken by winks and nods and quiet promises over conference calls. We'd actually like to know what the heck is going on."

Despite strong conservative opposition to Miers, the nomination is not in trouble, Specter said, but he said the process is among the strangest he has seen in 25 years. "There has been more controversy before this nominee has uttered a formal word than I have ever heard," he said.

The Specter-Leahy letter and news conference came a day after Miers disclosed that as a Dallas City Council candidate in 1989, she pledged to actively support a constitutional amendment banning abortion except to save a woman's life if Congress passed such an amendment. Liberal advocacy groups, which mostly have been silent as conservatives wrangled over the nomination, stepped up demands yesterday for more information about Miers's record.

In a letter to Specter and Leahy, the liberal Alliance for Justice complained that Miers "has produced almost nothing in writing to provide the American people a window into her judicial philosophy."

"Given her sparse public record, it is unclear whether she has a basic working knowledge of the issues that the Supreme Court regularly confronts," wrote Nan Aron, the group's president.

At yesterday's news conference, Specter appeared to be annoyed with Miers on several points. He said his staff gave him a "big binder" of legal cases she had handled in private practice, but "she gave us a skimpy little group" of material describing those cases in response to the questionnaire's request for details of her most important cases. "No reason we should know more about her cases than she does," he said.

Specter said he remained perplexed by a disagreement Monday stemming from his meeting with Miers in his office, after which their accounts differed on what the nominee had said about Supreme Court rulings that preceded Roe .

In dealing with 11 Supreme Court nominees, Specter said, "I've never walked out of a room and had a disagreement as to what was said." He smiled politely as Leahy said, "I've never known him to make a mistake on what he heard."

Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers's response to the committee's request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to "the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause" as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.

"There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation -- which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies -- with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.

Some Republicans played down the significance of the Specter-Leahy letter. "Requesting more information from a nominee is part of the confirmation process," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), past chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Another committee Republican, Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), said seeking more information on Miers's White House work was "a reasonable request."

Leahy held open the possibility that Democrats would seek a one-week delay between Miers's hearing -- expected to last four or five days -- and a committee vote on whether to recommend her to the Senate. Committee member Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the decision will depend on how much additional information about Miers the White House releases. "We want to see how much information is forthcoming between now and the 7th," he said.

In a speech last night at a Hispanic Bar Association dinner in Washington, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales sought to reassure Hispanics who "have expressed disappointment" in the Miers appointment.

"You and I know that there will be a Hispanic on the Court," Gonzales, who had been considered for the high court nomination, said in prepared remarks. "But I also know that Latinos want the same thing in a Supreme Court justice that the President wants: someone who can ably and faithfully interpret the Constitution and apply the law. And, I believe, we have that person in Harriet Miers."

Staff writers Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen contributed to this report.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Sarge]

I'm not sure if Bush was drinking or not when he picked this woman, but I hope she withdraws herself

[Thiebear]

Again:

When the Dems were complaining it was STFU he won.

When the Repubs complain it is: he doesnt know what he's doing.

Hmmm, seems to me he still won.

[twa]

As Bush's pick she is at least entitled to go thru the hearings.

Why are so many going out of thier way to distort facts?

Examine her record and let her speak...Then judge

[@DCGoldPants]

I thought they just "relaunched" her from the White House. Dropped the whole "LOOK! She's religous" thing, and now were trying the "HEY! She's super smart!" thing.

Did that bomb already?

When does Ms.Miers 3.0 happened?

[chomerics]

As Bush's pick she is at least entitled to go thru the hearings.

Why are so many going out of thier way to distort facts?

Examine her record and let her speak...Then judge

I have mentioned this before, but you don't want Aunt Bea on the SCOTUS. She is NOT qualified for the position, and she is a crony. Her written answers were very bad from what I have read, and she is not good at articulating her thoughts. So you really want a person like this on the court?

You should read what Bork had to say about her.

Slouching Towards Miers

Bush shows himself to be indifferent, if not hostile, to conservative values.

BY ROBERT H. BORK

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals.

There is, to say the least, a heavy presumption that Ms. Miers, though undoubtedly possessed of many sterling qualities, is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. It is not just that she has no known experience with constitutional law and no known opinions on judicial philosophy. It is worse than that. As president of the Texas Bar Association, she wrote columns for the association's journal. David Brooks of the New York Times examined those columns. He reports, with supporting examples, that the quality of her thought and writing demonstrates absolutely no "ability to write clearly and argue incisively."

The administration's defense of the nomination is pathetic: Ms. Miers was a bar association president (a nonqualification for anyone familiar with the bureaucratic service that leads to such presidencies); she shares Mr. Bush's judicial philosophy (which seems to consist of bromides about "strict construction" and the like); and she is, as an evangelical Christian, deeply religious. That last, along with her contributions to pro-life causes, is designed to suggest that she does not like Roe v. Wade, though it certainly does not necessarily mean that she would vote to overturn that constitutional travesty.

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.

Some moderate (i.e., lukewarm) conservatives admonish the rest of us to hold our fire until Ms. Miers's performance at her hearing tells us more about her outlook on law, but any significant revelations are highly unlikely. She cannot be expected to endorse originalism; that would alienate the bloc of senators who think constitutional philosophy is about arriving at pleasing political results. What, then, can she say? Probably that she cannot discuss any issue likely to come before the court. Given the adventurousness of this court, that's just about every issue imaginable. What we can expect in all probability is platitudes about not "legislating from the bench." The Senate is asked, then, to confirm a nominee with no visible judicial philosophy who lacks the basic skills of persuasive argument and clear writing.

But that is only part of the damage Mr. Bush has done. For the past 20 years conservatives have been articulating the philosophy of originalism, the only approach that can make judicial review democratically legitimate. Originalism simply means that the judge must discern from the relevant materials--debates at the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers, newspaper accounts of the time, debates in the state ratifying conventions, and the like--the principles the ratifiers understood themselves to be enacting. The remainder of the task is to apply those principles to unforeseen circumstances, a task that law performs all the time. Any philosophy that does not confine judges to the original understanding inevitably makes the Constitution the plaything of willful judges.

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.

Finally, this nomination has split the fragile conservative coalition on social issues into those appalled by the administration's cynicism and those still anxious, for a variety of reasons, to support or at least placate the president. Anger is growing between the two groups. The supporters should rethink. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aside, George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative (amnesty for illegal immigrants, reckless spending that will ultimately undo his tax cuts, signing a campaign finance bill even while maintaining its unconstitutionality). This George Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values. He appears embittered by conservative opposition to his nomination, which raises the possibility that if Ms. Miers is not confirmed, the next nominee will be even less acceptable to those asking for a restrained court. That, ironically, is the best argument for her confirmation. But it is not good enough.

It is said that at La Scala an exhausted tenor, after responding to repeated cries of "Encore," said he could not go on. A man rose in the audience to say, "You'll keep singing until you get it right." That man should be our model.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007424

[twa]

Already read Bork's opinion,but last I heard he has no input on choice.

Just what are YOUR qualifications,since others much more qualified disagree with your assesment?

[Kilmer17]

I dont think there's any chance at all she get's approved.

[wskin44]

Who is that attorney who argued Bush's case regarding the Florida elections in front of the Supreme Court? Why not nominate him? His wife was on the 9/11 plane that crashed in PA.

Although I probably wouldn't agree with many of his views, he seemed to have loads of integrity and I believe that he has argued and won more cases to the Supreme Court than any other active attorney.

Why not someone of his stature?

[twa]

I dont think there's any chance at all she get's approved.

I have little doubt she WILL be approved.

Neither her nor Bush will withdraw the nomination and the senate will pass her for fear of a different choice.

[stevenaa]

I'm dissapointed in this pick. I'd have preferred an outright conservative with a strong judicial background. It would have been a fight, but one worth fighting. There isn't enough information on her to know if it's a fight worth fighting, and although I'm a Bush supporter, I still want to be able to form my opinion on facts. Not on "Trust Me's".

[Kilmer17]

Who is that attorney who argued Bush's case regarding the Florida elections in front of the Supreme Court? Why not nominate him? His wife was on the 9/11 plane that crashed in PA.

Although I probably wouldn't agree with many of his views, he seemed to have loads of integrity and I believe that he has argued and won more cases to the Supreme Court than any other active attorney.

Why not someone of his stature?

Ted Olsen.

I was sure he'd get the call if Reinquist had stepped down or passed after Roberts took OConnors seat.

[codeorama]

I'm not sure if Bush was drinking or not when he picked this woman, but I hope she withdraws herself

He's your guy, you voted for him.

[chomerics]

I dont think there's any chance at all she get's approved.

I sure hope not. Although she is probably the best in terms of what the dems could hope for as far as a moderate, she is woefully unquallified for this job.

[Thiebear]

One of the issues was: She had 15 pages of her previous cases.. they replied saying they want EVERY case in the last 35 years (From the judge on FoxNews) he said: That would be impossible and it doesnt matter to current day thinkings...

Asking lawyers to find out? Could you list every case over 35 years?

[chomerics]

Just what are YOUR qualifications,since others much more qualified disagree with your assesment?

We've been through this before, and I am qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. The only qualification there is for being a SCOTUS is to have a pulse, and I believe most here fit that qualification.

Qualification isn't the issue, her ability to communicate and articulate an opinion is. When other people from her ideological backround disapprove of her nomination, this should open up your eyes. When Robert Bork and George Will rip her apart, and she is on THEIR side of the fence, you should take notice. When a US Senator says

"The comments I have heard range from incomplete to insulting,"

You should understand that she is not the right person for the job.

[twa]

They probably did not appreciate the simple NO as answers to a few questions,especialy when a politican would write a paragraph to say NO.

If her qualifications are not the problem,why do you always say she is NOT QUALIFIED Two examples just from this page:

she is woefully unquallified for this job.

She is NOT qualified

[Crazyhorse1]

As someone who is totally hostile to Bush and his gang, I feel I can offer you a unique point of view (considering most of you like to think of the Republican party as a conservatative party.)

1) I'm very happy Bush nominated Miers. It clearly shows that he is neither conservative nor fit to govern.

2) It also shows that he is no longer sound of mind and will be unable to focus on doing the country further damage in re to new iniatives.

3) Miers is older and foolish and can be rolled.

4) Her time on the court will not be long, and she can be replaced by a conservative or liberal nominated by a party that is actually interested in responsible governance.

5) This might be the straw that breaks the back of the neocons and exposes the Republican party for what it is to the red states. They understand cronyishm and phonies in government.

6) It informs evangelicals they've been played for suckers by the elite.

[Ancalagon the Black]

They probably did not appreciate the simple NO as answers to a few questions,especialy when a politican would write a paragraph to say NO.

I don't think it's that as much as her complete misinterpretation of the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution as well as the conflicting comments she made to Specter.

[DjTj]

I don't think it's that as much as her complete misinterpretation of the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution as well as the conflicting comments she made to Specter.

I think that criticism is a little harsh ... it's not a forgone conclusion from her questionnaire that she completely misinterpreted the Equal Protection Clause - it's clear that she's not familiar with the terminology, which shows a lack of knowledge, not necessarily a lack of intelligence or a flaw in judgment.

The conflicting comments she made to Arlen Specter also I think reflect her lack of knowledge. She has basically spent her entire career away from Constitutional Law, so I think it's no surprise that she is unfamiliar with the subject matter. As someone that is uneasy with much of the originalist legal canon, I actually take some solace in this unfamiliarity, because it means she will likely approach the issues with an open mind.

From a theoretical meritocratic standpoint, I think George Will, Robert Bork, and others have a very strong argument that Harriet Miers is unqualified. However, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I don't see her being so unqualified that she wouldn't be able to do the job. I would say she is underqualified, not unqualified.

There's no reason to believe she lacks the intelligence to learn the subject; she has had a very successful career in the law, although the practice of corporate law can be very different from the litigation that reaches the Supreme Court.

And in reality, the way the system works now, we don't actually need our Supreme Court Justices (or our Presidents) to be the smartest or most eloquent people in the world. Harriet Miers will have her pick of the smartest law students in the country each year to draft her opinions and help her through the intricacies of Constitutional Law. The briefs she will read will be written by some of the most distinguished lawyers in the country. Her colleagues are some of the most experienced Justices we've ever had on the Supreme Court. Our system of justice isn't going to fall apart if Harriet Miers is confirmed.

...outside of ideological complaints, I don't think the "unqualified" meme holds all that much weight. It is an affront to our sense of merit and perhaps consequently our sense of justice, but that doesn't really resonate with me. I find myself arguing against George Will's meritocratic stance ... when we can't pinpoint who exactly got passed over, has anyone actually been wronged by the selection of Harriet Miers? Maybe choosing someone that is "unqualified" is unfair to every one of those people that are more "qualified," but that harm seems so theoretical and so diffuse that there's almost no harm at all, especially since the second choice will never know whom he/she is.

[twa]

I don't think it's that as much as her complete misinterpretation of the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution as well as the conflicting comments she made to Specter.

I will leave that to the lawyers: like these:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012006.php

But I now realize that I was reading too much into Miers's sentence. Left-wing law professor Cass Sunstein is, for once, right. All Miers meant was that the City Council, in trying to draw districts in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, had to take into account the one-man-one-vote rule that has been held to be mandated by the Equal Protection Clause. In other words, the districts had to be of roughly equal size so that each voter's ballot counted about the same.

Thus understood, the criticism of Miers is (not for the first time) far out of proportion to the offense. The meaning she gives to the phrase "proportional representation" isn't the usual one, but it is perfectly logical. Read in this way, there is nothing at all wrong with what Miers wrote. The Equal Protection Clause has indeed been held to require that voters be "proportionally represented," i.e., that some citizens' votes not be diluted by being part of a disproportionately large district.

All of which suggests, I think, two things: first, people shouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that Miers is an idiot. Let's let her speak for herself at her confirmation hearing. And, second: Patterico, you can come in off that ledge.

[iheartskins]

From today's WSJ editorial page:

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB112985315966175075.html

The Miers Blunder

October 21, 2005; Page A14

Although skeptical from the start, we've restrained our criticism of the Harriet Miers nomination because we've long believed that Presidents of either party deserve substantial deference on their Supreme Court picks. Yet it now seems clear -- even well before her Senate hearings -- that this selection has become a political blunder of the first order.

Especially in the wake of his success with John Roberts, President Bush had a rare opportunity to fulfill his campaign pledge to change the Court by nominating someone in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In the process, he would have rallied his most fervent supporters and helped to educate the country about proper Constitutional interpretation. Instead, he picked a woman who was his personal and White House counsel, and who was unknown to nearly everyone outside the White House and his Texas circle.

After three weeks of spin and reporting, we still don't know much more about what Ms. Miers thinks of the Constitution. What we have learned is that the White House has presented her to the country, and thrown her into the buzz saw that is the U.S. Senate, without either proper preparation or vetting. The result has been a political melee that is hurting not just Ms. Miers, who deserves better. It is also damaging the White House and its prospects for a successful second term.

Instead of a fight over judicial philosophy, we're having a fight over one woman's credentials and background. Instead of debating the Kelo decision's evisceration of private property rights, we are destined to learn everything we never wanted to know about the Texas Lottery Commission. (See John Fund's column today at OpinionJournal.com1).

Instead of dividing Red State Democrats from Senate liberals, the nomination is dividing Republicans. Pat Robertson is threatening retribution not against moderate Democrats but against GOP conservatives who dare to oppose Ms. Miers. Chuck Schumer couldn't have written a better script.

Regarding Ms. Miers's qualifications, we aren't among those who think an Ivy League pedigree or judgeship is a prerequisite for a Supreme Court seat. But the process of getting to know Ms. Miers has been the opposite of reassuring. Her courtesy calls on Senators have gone so poorly that the White House may stop them altogether.

And on Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee took the extraordinary step of asking her for what amounts to "do-over" on a standard questionnaire about her judicial philosophy. The impression has been created, fairly or not, that Ms. Miers is simply not able to discuss the Constitutional controversies that have animated American political debate for two generations.

We sympathize with Ms. Miers, who is an accomplished woman with many admirable qualities. The questionnaire fiasco is as much the fault of the White House, which is supposed to have several lawyers review these things. And more than one of our own lawyer friends have told us that even they would have a difficult time cramming for Senate hearings in four short weeks.

But this is another way of saying that the mistake here was that of the President and his advisers, who badly misjudged the political environment into which they have thrown their nominee. In earlier and less polarized times, someone without broad Constitutional experience might have avoided this trouble. But after decades of Republican anger over judicial activism, and 20 years of disappointing GOP Court selections, a nominee who was a blank slate was bound to get pounded. Mr. Bush has set her up to be hit by a withering political crossfire.

Senate Republicans now find themselves caught between their loyalty to the President and their entirely legitimate concerns about Ms. Miers's philosophy and qualifications. For their part, Democrats have so far largely been content to watch their opposition squirm and shout. But they will certainly play the opportunists, jumping on any opening on ethics or ideology to defeat her and embarrass the President.

The liberal base may even demand it, given that one of the White House's private selling points to religious conservatives has been that she is both an evangelical and is personally opposed to abortion rights. (Hint: She'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.) These assurances, if that's what they were, may turn out to have been doubly counterproductive, given that they also undercut Republican claims to believe in process- rather than results-oriented jurisprudence.

Perhaps Ms. Miers will prove to be such a sterling Senate witness that she can still win confirmation. But so far the lesson we draw from this nomination is this: Bad things happen when a President decides that "diversity," personal loyalty and stealth are more important credentials for the Supreme Court than knowledge of the Constitution and battle-hardened experience fighting the judicial wars of the past 30 years.

[@DCGoldPants]

yikes...... seems the relaunch didn't go so well.

I'm kind of shocked to see people here really defending here.

Nobody here really knows her. Nobody out there really knows her.

I would think its either oppose or wait and see. But defend? That's just blind support.

[wskin44]

I think that criticism is a little harsh ...

TJ I love you man, but you are just wrong:

1) "There's no reason to believe she lacks the intelligence to learn the subject;"

The Supreme Court is not a place for interns. It's not just the big leagues, it's the ONLY league. Yes there have been some other appointees that weren't up to snuff on Constitutional law on day one, but they had other superlative qualities that allowed them to contribute. I'm sure that this woman is a fine person and should be proud of what she has accomplished, but there is zero evidence that she is the caliber of person needed.

2) "I actually take some solace in this unfamiliarity, because it means she will likely approach the issues with an open mind."

The White House is trying to sell her to conservatives on the basis that she will NOT have an open mind. Which is it? All things to all people either means someone is lying or this person has no substance.

3) "And in reality, the way the system works now, we don't actually need our Supreme Court Justices (or our Presidents) to be the smartest or most eloquent people in the world."

OMG! The system ISN'T working right now and one of the reasons is that our smartest and most eloquent people are not being elevated at a time when we need them most.

4) "Harriet Miers will have her pick of the smartest law students in the country each year to draft her opinions and help her through the intricacies of Constitutional Law."

:doh: If I didn't like you I would just leave it at that. There are only nine Americans on the court. There is absolutely no reason that all nine shouldn't have the highest levels of Constitutional scholorship, pure brainpower and the ability to write clearly and persuasively. It's becoming evident that not only is she not in this class but she also isn't even qualified to be one of those clerks you say will help her. We already have a President who operates that way. How's that working out for you?

5) "Our system of justice isn't going to fall apart if Harriet Miers is confirmed."

The first accurate statement in your whole post. But what will she add to the system? This is an opportunity to elevate a superstar to a lifetime position that will have far reaching effects on everyone in our Country who is not just alive now but who will live in the future too. An argument that is based on her not doing any harm is just weak.

Finally, the Supreme Court is made up of very intelligent strong willed individuals, some with big egos, and all who care deeply about being right. They primarily share their opinions through the written word, and rarely (if ever) openly debate issues face to face. The prestige and stature of each individual is such that they will not be persuaded by someone who is considered a lightweight, and this woman already threatens to be just that. At a minimum her writing skills would have to be superior in order to ever have a chance of influencing the court, and so far there is only disturbing evidence that she falls short here too.

Why not the best?

[chomerics]

Why not the best?

The whole argument can be summed into those four simple words. . . Why not the best?