I perused through
Ms. Miers answers to the Congressional questionnaire and am amazed at how under-qualified she is! When asked about the 10 most important cases she's litigated in her career, in almost every identified case, her role was as a Corporate defender. And in
every case she identified, she represented corporate interests. Furthermore, she proudly proclaimed that she is qualified to hear Constitutional issues because she had lots of experience with jurisdiction issues for corporations (
go figure) and spent 3 years with the Bush administration (who
cleeeearly respects the Constitution). She identified no legal experience with issues implicating civil rights, the 1st amendment, federalism, etc.
Beyond her lack of judicial qualifications, I am amazed by the excessive sloppiness of her writing and grammar skills. It doesn't help that Ms. Miers often failed to answer the questions addressed and answering with the lone word "no."
I've provided an example of her response to one of the questions on the flip (warning: it's painful to read.)
Did she not have anyone edit this? Was the Bush administration too preoccupied with their own mess to help her out? Her response is a grammatical catastrophe! For example:
Question 18. Legal Activities: Describe the most significant legal activities you have pursued, including significant litigation which did not progress to trial or legal matters that did not involve litigation. Describe fully the nature of your participation in these activities. Please list any client(s) or organization(s) for whom you performed lobbying activities and describe the lobbying activities you performed on behalf of such client(s) or organizations(s).
My legal experience is broad ranging (does she mean she has engaged in diverse legal activities?), representing individuals and corporations in cases that cut across areas of local, state, and Federal law. For example, I have been called to a deathbed to make sure the individual had a valid, enforceable will (someone should tell her questions regarding the enforceability of wills are delegated to the state, not the federal government); I have represented parents in contentious custody battles(another state issue); I have represented a woman facing deportation to a country where she and her son would be ostracized; I have represented a well-reputed individual accused of securities fraud(paging Mr. Frist...); and I have represented an array of corporate interests.
In commercial litigation, many matters are resolved by negotiation prior to suit, settlement before trial or are disposed of by the court on summary judgment. These results and outcomes are as important to the clients as jury verdicts (Which will help at the Supreme Court level how? If the parties appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, they are almost certainly not gonna settle!). Many of the matters in my practice have been resolved in this fashion and I have described some in response to Question 16.
Much of my legal experience dealt with contracts and similar everyday matters (which are issues the Supreme Court almost never deals with). Sometimes, because of jurisdictional issues, concepts of due process would loom large (yeah, procedural due process, which is often a straightforward issue; but, what about your experiences with substantive due process? Substantive due process issues (e.g. privacy) are much more contentious). In representing a media client, I was involved in First Amendment matters concerning libel allegations, prepublication review, and sourcing issues (yep, you clearly have lots of experience with the free speech clause, the establishment clause, etc.! Now, how was this one of the most "significant legal activities you have pursued"? and why don't you "describe fully the nature of your participation in these activities").
In addition to my practice of law, my experience includes running and holding public office. As an at-large city councilmember, I dealt with city issues from supporting the police and firemen to paving issues (Which would be helpful if you were running for Congress... But, for sitting on the Supreme Court?! again, why is this significant?). I also was called upon by the Mayor to be the Council's principal representative in responding to a suit in which a Dallas Federal judge found that the city had discriminated in Federally funded housing (Really? Well, what happened with that case? What were your duties as a principal representative? The title doesn't suggest you were legal counsel for the City. Also, this is the first time you talk about it!). Additionally, the city faced a legal challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (Again, what was your role in the matter? What was the outcome? Need I remind you that the questionnaire also asks you to "describe the lobbying activities you performed on behalf of such client(s) or organizations(s)").
My experience on the City Council helps me understand the interplay between serving on a policy making board and serving as a judge. An example, of this distinction can be seen in a vote of the council to ban flag burning. The Council was free to state its policy position, we were against flag burning. The Supreme Court's role was to determine whether our Constitution allows such a ban. The City Council was anxious to encourage minority and women-owned businesses, but our processes had to conform to equal protection requirements, as well.(Ok, so what was the point of this paragraph? I'll give props to anyone who can figure that out.)
My City Council service and working in economic development activities afforded me with special insight into the importance of a stable, respected, and fair judiciary in which the public can have confidence (How?! This sounds like the biggest heap of shit I have heard in a while! Do you not realize that you are writing this to Congress and not a middle school English teacher?!). A factor in persuading companies to consider relocation or location in Texas was the state of our judiciary (But, you weren't a judge in Texas... So, why does this make you better qualified?). Allegations of "justice for sale" or inflated jury verdicts impaired efforts to attract employers to our State. Companies making location decisions look for a fair, balanced court system (Thanks, for the lesson, but how does this apply to you?).
My experience in leadership positions with the Dallas Bar and the State Bar of Texas is (are... grrr) detailed to some extent in articles I wrote at the time. Lawyer advertising, regulation of lawyers by the Federal Trade Commission, the importance of pro bono work, and education about the legal system and the courts were just some of the topics with which the bar associations were involved (Ok, and...?). My work with these professional associations provided me with valuable experience in dealing with the challenges facing our justice system (how?!). My involvement with the American Bar Association was similarly valuable (Well, how were they valuable? You never discussed this!). Serving as a member of the Board of the ABA Journal for six years and then as Chair of the Board provided me with a wealth of experience with the issues that face the profession and our courts, such as the importance of an independent judiciary and proper funding for the judiciary. Likewise, serving on committees such as the Election Law Committee provided an understanding of the balance between the appropriate regulation of electioneering and the protection of free speech as guaranteed in the First Amendment.
In addition to the professional work I have done, I have had the opportunity to work in the community with a variety of organizations. That work has included easing the transition for inmates into the community, helping ensure that young people receive education about our legal system, working with organizations to assist underprivileged children, working with Goodwill, and lending my time and efforts to a number of other charitable organizations.
I have also had the opportunity to serve in the White House in three separate positions. This experience has given me a thorough view of how the Executive Branch functions (but, not how it should function). Likewise, in my current job, I have had an increased opportunity to work with members of the Congress in connection with a number of issues (such as?!), and that opportunity has given me a (grrrr) greater insight into the role of the Legislative Branch.
A critical role of my current job is to assist in the formulation of recommendations for individuals to fill judicial vacancies. I also participated in such activities as Deputy Chief of Staff (That's an activity?!). My work in this area confirmed my view that judges must limit their role to interpreting and applying the law, leaving policymaking and legislating to others (how?).
Anyone who claims Ms. Miers is meticulous needs their heads checked. Any senator who votes in favor of appointing her should be shaken like a Polaroid picture. And, if this woman is ultimately confirmed, I sure hope pigs start flying and hell freezes over...