Talk:Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Why is this on Wikipedia? Isn't it basically Wikinews material? Isomorphic 00:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This article parallels John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings, which was continually updated through the summer, and now appears to be a valuable documentation of the nomination and confirmation process. Brandon39 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Education

Why do some authors insist upon not reavealing the name of the law degree earned by all law school graduates since 1971? The White House chose to refer to her degeee as a J.D.. Why should we use a generic term for this degree, when we do not do so for other degrees, such as D.D.S., M.B.A., M.D., or Ph.D?

There is currently a debate going on as to what is opinion and speculation in the education section.

I understand that there are people who want to say she didn't go to a law firm of comprabable quality to recent Justices, but her experience is comprabable to a number of past justices. Some have talked about US News and World Reports rankings. Others disagree as it wasn't published until 13 years after she graduated. Some have just referred to "top tier" law firms, but that has no specific meaning without references.

I feel as though comments such as "It is possible that an attempt to block Miers nomination on educational grounds would raise charges of elitism amongst the American public." is not fact. I do believe it to be true, but not fact. It is speculation.

"Moreover, Miers advisors are likely to have her stress that her differing credentials could be an advantage to the..." I would like to know what gives this person any idea what Miers advisors are going to do, and please share that SOURCE with the rest of us.

I added a speculation section to solve this issue.

Cbackert 22:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The speculation section has been removed (not by me), thought I don't necessarily disagree with that.

Cbackert 06:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder (and have commented on Talk:Harriet Miers if the whole education and qualifications sections aren't out of control. It seems to me that it really constitutes original research -- so far as I've seen, nobody has cited any sources of notable people outside of Wikipedia who are raising this as an important issue. I'm not saying such people aren't out there; I haven't particularly gone looking. But wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to say something like, "Senator So-and-so expressed concern over Miers' educational background, while former Solictor General so-and-so felt such concerns were unfounded."? Brandon39 06:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I have decided to be bold, and have pared down both the education and experience sections, referring readers to the bios of the other justices for further comparative information. Brandon39 01:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps given that things have died down the education section could be reworked. It just seems like this article is a bit vague when it says her credentials were objectively not sufficient. To anyone outside of law their is just no context given. I think it would be time to revisit the issue and essential add two lines. First, one regarding the fact that SMU is not a school that produces members of the court, and that members of the court with comiserate qualifications have not been nominated since the 1970's, and second, a line on the fact that indeed the law firm she worked at was not a big hitter by vault rankings (I think this is less important).

[edit] Edited "Controversy", due to Weasel words

Removed the section "controversy" (reproduced below) because it is is a textbook example of violations in Weasel wording. See Wikipedia: Avoid weasel terms. Here is what has been removed:

Miers' nomination has drawn some criticism from both political sides. Liberals have claimed that her record is too thin, and that she likely is simply a spoils system appointee —nominated for her loyalty rather than her qualifications. Conservative pundits have expressed similar issues, but have focused on her responses to issues such as abortion and gay rights, expressing fear that she would in fact be a "sleeper" liberal candidate (like David Souter). Some critics have speculated that the conservative criticism is simply part of a preemptory campaign strategy to make the nominee appear more disagreeable to their ideology than she actually is. Both sides have complained that her experience may not be sufficient to qualify her for the position.

There are zero attributions nor citations to back up any of these sentences. Please feel free to put it back in with appropriate revisions.

4.228.90.109 15:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Approximately half of those are widely-held views that are repeated as the intro to every talk and news show currently out there. One question though. It's not really appropriate to attribute some of these views to one particular news organization, as some of the views are very widely held. So is it acceptable to quote news organizations who themselves are using weasel-words? Can we say: The San Francisco Chronicle has said that "Bush sought to counter a tidal wave of accusations -- not from his Democratic opponents but from his own core political supporters -- that he has chosen a crony and a blank slate who lacks the experience, intellect and record to fill the pivotal seat of retiring centrist Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."? [1] --Interiot 15:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


I don't think in general, based on Wikipedia: Avoid weasel terms. But even this specific example shows why it is probably not a good idea. It appears that the author of the SF Chronicle article [2] contradicts herself. She writes "Bush sought to counter a tidal wave of accusations -- not from his Democratic opponents but from his own core political supporters -- that he has chosen a crony...". But in the article, the only person who hints at, or mentions, cronyism is Randy Barnett:
"Randy Barnett, a libertarian law professor at Boston University, wrote a scathing piece in the Wall Street Journal blasting Miers' lack of experience in constitutional law and accusing Bush of cronyism."
Do libertarians comprise Bush's "core political supporters"? Based on the Wikipedia article bio about him, Barnett apparently represented Raich in Gonzales v. Raich [3], a case about medical marjiuana. In a nutshell, Raich represented the pro-marijuana side; Gonzales is Alberto Gonzales, the Bush-appointed Attorney General, representing the Federal Government; according to the Wiki article Gonzales v. Raich, "The United States Federal law, via the Controlled Substances Act, does not recognize and opposes medical marijuana." Barnett lost the case in the Supreme Court.
Thus, unless I'm misreading the article, the author of the article does not seem to provide evidence of a "tidal wave of accusations...from his own core political supporters...that he has chosen a crony...".
-4.228.213.210 17:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't know that it was a text book example of anything. It was a good hearted yet misguided attempt discuss an issue that is absolutely appropriate for this forum in a balanced way. I do agree it needed to be edited. It has since been updated.

Cbackert 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Test

The people who are concerned are in fact "civil rights" activists. 214.13.4.151 19:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New material - MSN article

This article may forecast an issue likely to arise in the confirmation process: Miers' stand on attorney fee caps questioned. The article suggests that Miers once advocated that the Texas Supreme Court should have the power to over-ride the legislature and limit attorney's fees. Of course, that's a state supreme court, and may be expected to have a more direct role in governance than the U.S. Supremes.  BD2412 talk 03:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source needed for repeal of sodomy laws.

Could someone provide a source for this section:

"Miers indicated on the questionnaire that she supported civil rights for gays, but opposed the repeal of the sodomy laws"

It's something that may go to the core of her character based upon the gravity of this statement, and is concerning to see it here without any reference to whatever spawned it. magicalspirits 03:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It's all over the news, how about [4]? I would like to see the actual survey though, if anyone can dig it up. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More Information

This looks like a good source of information for someone who wants to dive into it: UMich index of Miers documents NoSeptember 17:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Experience

I wasn't sure the reference to trials was accurate, because a contemporary litigator doesn't necessarily try cases. The first several sources I checked didn't state specifically that she had actually tried any cases. Then I found her responses to the Judiciary Committee questionnaire, and her description of her experience included the very point I had planned to make. She wrote:

I have litigated matters in the Texas state courts and in the Federal courts, predominantly those in Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. My appearances in court included arguing motions, conducting full evidentiary hearings and trials, and briefing and arguing appeals. Given the nature of a modern corporate litigation practice, however, many cases were resolved without actual litigation or without a trial, and therefore are not reported. (Questionnaire, p. 26)

I suspect that, like many other litigators, she's done comparatively few trials. That's why I modified that line to state that she had litigation experience, "including" trials. The prior wording over-emphasized what was probably a minor part of her work. JamesMLane 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

I think this should be trimmed down and merged with Harriet Miers and Defeated and withdrawn nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States. There simply is no longer justification for such detailed news-like coverage of this brief and aborted process. This isn't Wikinews...articles need to summarize years of events, not day-by-day. Postdlf 15:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed, especially given the fact there is a fairly thorough Harriet Miers biography. Mmmbeer 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No merge. I'm actually not as sure as I was earlier. The article is already here, and it's somewhat informative--even if the event was brief. It's been newsworthy and it has a somewhat unique outcome. The event seems somewhat distinct from the person. I'm not sure merging is a good idea. I think that for the time being, it ought to be it's own article. Mmmbeer 20:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed - let's merge away!  BD2412 talk 18:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagreed please don't merge this. Let progress organically. 'Wikipedia is not paper'. Merging this will buff off the details. Let's instead, allow this to grow. Just begcause she has withdrawn her candidacy, does not mean the story is over or that the usefulness of this information has passed. Pedant 22:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe what needs to happen is that the redundant information, like her experience, ought to be moved to the biography. The event should be distinct. This might clarify some of the point of both articles. mmmbeerT / C / ? 00:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. There's no reason we have to try to cram everything about a person into one article. Articles about notables like George W. Bush and John Kerry have multiple daughter articles to cover specific aspects of their lives at a level of detail that would be inappropriate for the main bio. Miers's pre-nomination experience should indeed be covered in her bio, as Mmmbeer urges. In addition, however, some aspects of her experience were important to the nomination process, and this article should give the basic information necessary to understand that aspect of the controversy. Some readers, years from now, will be reading to find out how Supreme Court nominations are handled. They'll want to know the factors that affected this incident, without having to go back to the Harriet Miers article. JamesMLane 07:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Postdlf Fawcett5 18:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Postdlf, obviously after some editing. How a United States Supreme Court nomination (this should probably be moved to Harriet Miers United States Supreme Court nomination if unmerged, in the interest of strict accuracy) is handled is valuable information, but it's valuable information that ought to be at the article on the Supreme Court. Most of the information in here could be edited down in length significantly while still leaving the pertinent details, leading to a nice mergeable section. Lord Bob 15:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't merge as per JamesMLane. Tempshill 22:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of merger process

This proposal doesn't seem like the sort of merger addressed in Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. It's really a proposal to delete this article, on the grounds that a separate article isn't needed. I think it should go through AfD. I've addressed this procedural question in more detail at Wikipedia talk:Merging and moving pages#Merger as deletion. (I suggest that discussion of the procedural point should go there, not here, to keep it all in one place.) JamesMLane 19:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Deletion would be 'this information must die'. Merging is 'this information must go over there with that information'. Personally, I think AfD would be a lot better if people stopped cluttering it up with merge cases! Lord Bob 19:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Lord Bob. My suggestion to merge was a suggestion to make sure the essential content was included in Harriet Miers and Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States; the latter article can focus on the process more than the former. Much of the content of this article, particularly the attempts to list evidence of her views subject by subject, can go without being incorporated elsewhere, but that's not a deletion—that's simple editing. Postdlf 16:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Count of Supreme Court justices

Anonymous user 4.225.220.166 made a request on Talk:List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States which was motivated by a dispute on this page. The dispute centers on a sentence which currently reads, "Forty-one of the 111 Supreme Court Justices appointed never served as a judge prior to their nomination." The question is how many Supreme Court justices have existed.

If one counts up the number of rows in the List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States article, there are 111 rows. However, two of the justices, John Rutledge and Charles Evans Hughes, served non-consecutive terms as Associate and Chief Justice, and therefore are listed twice. Correcting for the 2 double-counts gives us 109 justices.

I will now revise this article appropriately.

— DLJessup (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Schenck or Robert Schenck?

In the "Reactions to her nomination" section there is a reference to Robert Schenck, however, the wikilink leads to Paul Schenck. Which one is meant here? --Rob 15:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush implied

Bush himself implied that her religion was part of why he nominated her.

It's not that I doubt it, but I would like to see the source. --A Sunshade Lust 01:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

See, e.g., http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/10/13/bush_promoting_miers_invokes_her_faith/ All major media outlets had similar stories after he made that statement. Postdlf 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/r/Talk%7EHarriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination_19de.html"