« Law School Admissions: Are Faculty Just Choosing Themselves? | Main | Listen In On The White House's Pro-Miers Strategy! »
October 7, 2005
I've Always Been Partial to Brockholst, Myself
"In an initial chat with Miers, according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices. Miers responded with "Warren" -- which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade . Miers said she meant Warren Burger, the sources said."Did she also say she's a big fan of Horace, Willis, and Mahlon?
What an absurd answer. On every level. It is absurd to think that she typically refers to Supreme Court justices by their first names. It is absurd to think that Earl Warren is one of her favorite justices. And it is absurd to think that any astute student of the Court would view the disorganized, vain, petulant, and mediocre Warren Burger as a favorite.
My guess here is that she was not referring to Burger. My guess is that she was referring to Earl Warren, and that the name slipped out because it's a talking point: Earl Warren is the most famous example of a person who--like Miers--was never a judge before joining the Supreme Court. So this is a name that her handlers have probably been encouraging her to raise in response to questions (especially from Democrats like Leahy) about whether a person who has never been a judge can do the job of a Supreme Court justice.
It was, in other words, a right answer--but to the wrong question.
Posted by Eric at October 7, 2005 8:45 AM
Comments
HA!
earl warren (=death by conservatives)
warren burger (oh please, nobody conservative likes warren, oh, i mean, burger).
even if earl warren was a talking point response, he seems like a dangerous choice since he was surely not what eisenhower expected.
someone should ask, "don't you agree Sherman Minton was an excellent justice?" and see what she says. as a close truman crony, he's a good parallel. she'll have no clue.
Posted by: nc_litigator at October 7, 2005 9:28 AM
I'm going to have to agree. Why not say Burger? (Not that I'd understand why she'd say him in the first place!)
Posted by: Nunzia at October 7, 2005 11:24 AM
Tsk. Tsk. Damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Chief Justice Earl Warren is the definite wrong answer because he is the most famous example of an expected conservative becoming a liberal. Chief Justice Warren Burger is another wrong answer, because he voted for Roe v. Wade, and I'm sure conservatives don't want to think Harrier Miers will vote in a similar manner.
I think a comparison to Chief Justice Roger B. Taney would be apt. Taney got appointed to the Court because he was a friend of President Andrew Jackson. Jackson was famous for the spoils system of giving government positions to his best friends. Taney wrote the opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, and we all know what conservatives think of that. . .
Posted by: Chris at October 7, 2005 11:52 AM
I believe she was just channeling her intellectual hero, Homer Simpson.
"Mmmmmmmmm.... Burger."
I'm curious Chris - what do conservatives think of Dred Scott? I haven't seen that mentioned in the handbook.
Posted by: Al Maviva at October 7, 2005 4:22 PM
Al, They're definitely against it, but it's a close call. In fact, President Bush thought there was enough doubt that he had to specifically say he was against it during the debates, just so there wouldn't be any question. He couldn't have had anything else in mind by that statement could he?
Posted by: Mojo at October 7, 2005 8:04 PM
Yeah, I was specifically thinking of the Kerry-Bush debates, where Bush awkwardly mentioned Dred Scott v. Sandford as an example of judicial activism that needed to be overturned. Many people say that Dred Scott v. Sandford is code for Roe v. Wade, supposedly another example of judicial activism that needs to be overturned.
Posted by: Chris at October 8, 2005 12:26 AM