http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/That said, the confirmation hearings should prove to be fascinating, since the typical custom of examining a nominee's judicial record will not be a viable option. Even looking through the clips, we note that Miers is reticent to the point of shy, virtually unquotable, someone who is comfortable being so low-profile as to be essentially invisible. Apparently she is very detail conscious. We learn this from Legal Times, which recently ran a profile of Miers that was hardly flattering (and borderline mean):
"She has also earned a reputation as exacting, detail-oriented, and meticulous -- to a fault, her critics say. 'She can't separate the forest from the trees,' says one former White House staffer...
..."One former White House official familiar with both the counsel's office and Miers is more blunt. 'She failed in Card's office for two reasons,' the official says. 'First, because she can't make a decision, and second, because she can't delegate, she can't let anything go. And having failed for those two reasons, they move her to be the counsel for the president, which requires exactly those two talents.'
On the Scotusblog this morning, Tom Goldstein offers an interesting analysis of the coming confirmation battle: "The themes of the opposition will be cronyism and inexperience.
Democratic questioning at the hearings will be an onslaught of questions about federal constitutional law that Miers in all likelihood won't want to, or won't be able to (because her jobs haven't called on her to study the issues), answer. I have no view on whether she should be confirmed (it's simply too early to say), but will go out on a limb and predict that she will be rejected by the Senate. In my view, Justice O'Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
