S.C. nominee Miers provides wrong answer on congressional Constitution question

Ladewig

I lost an avatar bet.
Ladewig
Joined
Dec 4, 2001
Messages
28,828
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20051020/1065386.asp

Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers' 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 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.
Click to expand...

I am surprised that "the most qualified person" the president could find is weak on Constitutional law. But don't worry, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Spector said that despite strong conservative opposition to Miers, the nomination is not in trouble. Hurrah for the Bush loyalists who vote along party lines!
 
Ladewig said:
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20051020/1065386.asp



I am surprised that "the most qualified person" the president could find is weak on Constitutional law. But don't worry, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Spector said that despite strong conservative opposition to Miers, the nomination is not in trouble. Hurrah for the Bush loyalists who vote along party lines!
Click to expand...

You Bush basher. Why are you so filled with hate? ;)
 
How much Bush could a bushwacker bash, if a bushwacker could bash Bush?

:p

MHB
 
All of it.

And I do believe I was Bushwacking when I joined this forum - October 2002 from memory.
 
Mark said:
While serving as White House Counsel, Bush's "brilliant" Supreme Court nominee briefly lost her license to practice law because she forgot to pay her bar association dues.
Click to expand...
In fairness, that's not the sort of thing that would reasonably disqualify anyone from the position of Supreme Court justice.

Heck, if anything, absentmindedness supports the contention that's she's brilliant.
 
Melendwyr said:
In fairness, that's not the sort of thing that would reasonably disqualify anyone from the position of Supreme Court justice.

Heck, if anything, absentmindedness supports the contention that's she's brilliant.
Click to expand...

I am reminded of an old Calvin & Hobbes:

Calvin: I heard that some kids don’t pay attention in class because the class goes at too slow a pace for them. Some of us are too smart for the class. :cool:

Susie: Right, you are too smart. :rolleyes:

Calvin: Believe it lady!!! You know how Einstein used to get low grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
Yes, Bush bashing is becoming fashionable these days. Even Ann Coulter is doing it. Of course, I was Bush bashing before Bush bashing became cool.
Click to expand...

Elitist. I bet you wear a fedora and read the NYT. Hell, I'll bet you wear a fedora WHILE reading the NYT. Damn, this reminds me: I need to get a fedora.
 
Melendwyr said:
Heck, if anything, absentmindedness supports the contention that's she's brilliant.
Click to expand...
A general point I've been making since my childhood. Where would the world be without the brilliant but absent-minded? Do we want senior judges who asked their parents for a set of box-files as a going-to-college present? I think not.
 
Mark said:
You Bush basher. Why are you so filled with hate? ;)
Click to expand...
Is there any way we could dispassionately bash Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Spector? What's his pedigree?

Not that I'm against hate. Sometimes it's called for. Like rage. But charity has its place as well.
 
So... what was the question, and what was the wrong answer?

"There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass 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.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that it's Sunstein that got it wrong. There is a proportional representation requirement: legislative districts are required to have equal populations.
 
Art Vandelay said:
So... what was the question, and what was the wrong answer?


Seems to me that it's Sunstein that got it wrong. There is a proportional representation requirement: legislative districts are required to have equal populations.
Click to expand...

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/22/Worldandnation/Miers_falls_flat_with.shtml

... Committee leaders sent her a stern letter demanding more details for nine of the 28 questions, including one about constitutional experience.

In that question, the committee asked her to "describe in detail any cases or matters you addressed as an attorney or public official which involved constitutional questions."

In her initial 11/2-page response, Miers said she dealt with those issues as White House counsel, as a corporate lawyer and during her two years on the Dallas City Council.

"For instance," she wrote, "when addressing a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause."

But law professors said the clause, which is part of the 14th Amendment, does not have a "proportional representation requirement."

"Whatever she is trying to say there, she didn't say it well," said Cheh, adding that the error "is worrisome because it might be a basic misunderstanding about the Voting Rights Act."

Sunstein, a well-known constitutional scholar, said Miers may have made the mistake because of "a simple brain freeze, the sort that all human beings are subject to. On the other hand, it is at least mildly embarrassing to make a mistake of that magnitude."
Click to expand...

Given that the press and congress was already expressing doubts about her qualifications, her getting something like that wrong in a written response does not build confidence.
 
Last edited:
Mark said:
While serving as White House Counsel, Bush's "brilliant" Supreme Court nominee briefly lost her license to practice law because she forgot to pay her bar association dues.

[/url]
Click to expand...

I don't consider that in itself to be an issue.

On the other hand, when Alberto Gonzales describes her as "very detail oriented" and "very meticulous" I do start to wonder what the heck is going on here.
 
Melendwyr said:
Heck, if anything, absentmindedness supports the contention that's she's brilliant.
Click to expand...

Wow. I am not suggesting that one thing should disqualify her, but...wow.

I am predicitng in the next few years a literal epidemic of cumulative trauma back injuries from people who constantly bent over backwards to make excuses for this corrupt, inept administration.
 
But what exactly is wrong with it? The logic here seems to be " 'proportional representation' is often used to refer to racial representation, there is no racial representation issue here, so she is wrong". But that's rather fallacious reasoning.

And what's with "In her initial 11/2-page response, Miers said she dealt with those issues as White House counsel, as a corporate lawyer and during her two years on the Dallas City Council"? Do they mean 1 and 1/2 page?
 
Here is Miers's completed questionnaire.

http://www.npr.org/documents/2005/oct/miers/miersquestionnaire.pdf

Of particular interest: her handwaving response to question 22, her contradictory responses to questions 23 and 26, and her almost certainly false response to question 27(b) (having been Bush's personal attorney for years, I cannot believe that they never had conversations about controversial legal issues).

I strongly doubt that she will be confirmed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom