A legal colleague writes on Harriet Miers
Ken Rainey is an attorney in Dallas, Texas. My wife has worked with Ken on several legal matters. Ken knows Harriet Miers well and thinks highly of her qualifications. This morning Ken sent an email to two-dozen of his friends (including my wife). My wife suggested I put Ken’s email up on the blog — so you can bet it’s going up. (Yes, Ken gave her his permission.)
Ken Rainey on Harriet Miers:
Several of you have inquired about my thoughts on Harriet Miers. My answer is simple. Of the 110 or so citizens of this great country who have served on the United States Supreme Court, none have been more decent, God-fearing, dedicated, capable or worthy than she.
Harriet Miers has labored long in the trenches of the law– all kind of law. She has lived where the practical application of the law meets theory. She has rolled up her sleeves and gotten down in the ditches where her clients were stuck to help lighten their load. She remained at the office after completing her client’s work for the day, long after others went home, to do her work for the profession and the poor. She pushed when others quit. She has blazed more trails for women than almost any other in these parts. No one that has been around her for a moment, lawyers, judges and lay people alike, can possibly question that she is not an anchor of the cause of justice. Her client base and type of cases she has handled is as diverse as the political spectrum that will look at her under a microscope. What each enquirer is going to find is what President Lincoln admonished General Hunter to be in a letter written during the Civil War: “Act well thy part. In this all honor lies. He that does something at the head of one company will eclipse him who does nothing at the head of a hundred.” Harriet Miers has “acted well her part” whenever and wherever she has been called to serve.
Harriet Miers became a Director of the State Bar of Texas on the same day I became President of the Texas Young Lawyers Association. When she was nominated to run for President of The State Bar of Texas, I was Chair of the State Bar Committee on Professionalism. We’ve met. I have had the privilege to spend many hours working with her both on matters that related to the bar’s role in public service as well as a couple of cases where she and I represented a common client. I can tell you, by whatever standard you choose to judge her, litmus test included, she is, as we say East of the Pine Curtain, ‘good folks’. In addition to that, she is brilliant. She likes to answer the question and she keeps digging until she is certain that she knows the right answer based on the law. She cares about doing what is right. She does what is right. If this country ever had a chance to put a p erson on this Bench and reach the right result for the right reasons, this is it.
Now you notice that I haven’t said a word about what her “legal politics” are. What ever that is. To my knowledge she doesn’t have any. She appears, as I have observed, to be a strict constructionist if by that term one means not using the courthouse or the law to ” legislate from the bench.” On more than one occasion I have been in meetings and conferences with her when she would look over at me or someone and say: “what’s the law?” Not, “what result do you want to squeeze out of the question “, but “what’s the law”? I have no idea what her views are on particular issues. But I do know this. Far more important than the answer to any particular question that she or any other candidate might give, is the fundamental understanding that any public servant must have in recognizing that the exercise of power they have is a gift of the people, all the people. I know of no one who understands and “acts” that principle better than she. Harriet Miers will judge fully understanding that she does so as a steward of the public trust in accordance with a strict reading of the document that creates that public trust– the Constitution of the United States of America. This country is on the verge of doing something very special. I am confident that when all who care to get to know Harriet the way her colleagues and I do here in Dallas, that she will be confirmed and well on her way to yet another higher place that will be made better for her having been there. [Ken Rainey]
I interpret “East of the Pine Curtain” to mean “East Texas.”
The Pine Curtain is a phrase that describes the portion of NE Texas east of the transition from the Post Oak belt to the Piney Woods — basically from the middle of Anderson County on east.
Comment by Mark L — 10/5/2005 @ 5:52 pm
Despite the sterling description by Mr. Rainey, I have two significant problems with Harriet Miers. First, someone who sounds that tough and dedicated does not walk around displaying the body language of demure submissiveness that she does. I have lost count of the number of news clips that shows her walking with her hands clasped in front of her. What is that? That’s not how a leader of either gender would walk. There is something wrong there that tells me she scrapes and bows a little too much. Following this, her resume reads more like what I would call “A-leader-who-serves” as opposed to “A-leader-who-initiates”. So, she would be the type that often checks the wind direction. Not good for independent thinking needed on the Supreme Court. The second point is that all of this suggests she is susceptible to being worn down by the incessant ideological assault from the left. They have many trophies in their cabinet: Souter, Kennedy, O’Connor, and Stevens being the most recent scalps. How long before Miers’ scalp is in there too?
Comment by bioqubit — 10/5/2005 @ 10:16 pm
Here’s what gets me about the folks complaining about the nomination: A lot of these Supreme Court rulings have a real-world effect. Miers clearly seems like an intelligent person who has spent her career in real world situations (including the war on terror) as opposed to being part of the legal-academic complex. The Supreme Court has become a bit of an ivory tower of late. Miers will bring a perspective that has not existed there for a very long time.
Comment by HaroldHutchison — 10/5/2005 @ 11:07 pm
Dawn Patrol Welcome to the Dawn Patrol, our daily roundup of information on the War on Terror and other topics - from the MilBlogs, other blogs, and the mainstream media. If you’re a blogger, you can join the conversation. If you link…
Trackback by Mudville Gazette — 10/6/2005 @ 8:28 am
Hands clasped in front of her’, ‘Gender Leader’, what do those terms mean? You are correct if you say “Nothing”. It is very important that judges, to the extent they should lead at all, do it by serving the law. This ideal seems to fit Harriet Miers very well.
Comment by Hugh McDonald — 10/6/2005 @ 10:18 am
It’s the same old scenario: Supreme Court justices are not supposed to “make” laws, just news.
Comment by Elliot Essman — 10/6/2005 @ 11:29 am
A 1s2 2s2p6 3s2p6d10 4s2p6d10 5s2p2 Ear There is a brush fire starting on the Right. At the moment it is smoldering, smoking. President Bush and his advisors have clearly caught a whiff of it. It remains to be seen how they choose to fight this fire, but I’m quite convinced pouring gasolin…
Trackback by Peace Like A River — 10/6/2005 @ 11:42 am
Links and Minifeatures 10 06 Thursday I got distracted and forgot to post that Carnival of Vanities is up! ********** Okay, this is weird. Just looked at the website …
Trackback by Searchlight Crusade — 10/6/2005 @ 4:59 pm
One thing I have learned about Harriet Miers…. ….is that people who know her well speak very highly of her. One cannot achieve a higher status in life than praise from those who know you best.Now you notice that I haven 
Trackback by Media Lies — 10/6/2005 @ 9:36 pm
Peer’s Info on Miers A legal colleague writes on Harriet Miers An interesting posting from Austin Bay - a very positive missive from a Dallas attorney who knows / has workd with Ms Miers. A bit more information as grist for the mill. He…
Trackback by RadioActive Chief — 10/6/2005 @ 11:09 pm
Of the 110 or so citizens of this great country who have served on the United States Supreme Court, none have been more decent, God-fearing, dedicated, capable or worthy than she. I am sure that Oliver Wendell Holmes was more capabale. This hysterical boosterism makes me suspect Miers.
Comment by Steve J. — 10/7/2005 @ 4:03 pm
One of the big problems those of us on the left have with Ms Miers is the “code” that is used to describe. “She is, as we say east of the pine curtain, ‘good Folks’.” is hardly a serious evaluation of her abilities. It is similar to George Bush’s request that we trust him. That she’s a good person. Similar to Dr. Dobson’s recommendation based on privateinformation. It is in a way a dereliction of his duty for President Bush to nominate and refuse to explicate. (O.K. Johnnie Cochran I’m not)
Comment by bbbustard — 10/7/2005 @ 4:38 pm
With Miers, Bush is playing not to lose, not playing to win - and win is what we deserve after almost two decades of winning elections since Bork was Borked. It isn’t enough to “hope” we have a reliable card-punching conservative on the Court. While Miers is clearly a lawyer of accomplishment, she’s certainly no jurist. An irrelevant resume and a job recommendation are not qualifications for an elite job like SCOTUS. She needs to be withdrawn and a real candidate proferred in her place like Coulter says. A comment by “Observer” at volokh.com elaborates my point at length: “I concur with [Charles] Krauthamer[’s opinion: she needs to be withdrawn]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601468.html?nav=rss_nation/special Miers’s qualifications are similar in many respects to Sandra Day O’Connor’s - if you recall, O’Connor was a state senator, then a judge on an intermediate state court, not even on the state’s supreme court. She knew very little about federal constitutional law when appointed to the Court and spent the first five or so years of her tenure trying to get up the learning curve. In the end, she never accomplished that, and ended up voting on cases like a legislator [as Miers appears doomed to], instead of analyzing them like a judge [ie, a jurist], and writing incomprehensible opinions [like Miers will]. “When Reagan appointed O’Connor there were few women accomplished in the law and even fewer conservative women lawyers. Today there are many. Why pick one with thin qualifications when, if you wanted a woman, there are so many stellar candidates around? ‘Trust me’ just doesn’t cut it as a reason. “This is a self-inflicted wound of the first order. I am dismayed, and I count myself as a loyal and strong supporter of President Bush. But he should withdraw this nomination and nominate Judge McConnell or Judge Jones or Judge Brown or Judge Alioto or some other first rate constitutional thinker. What school they went to is not particularly important. What matters is the quality of their thinking and writing about constitutional issues.” http://volokh.com/posts/1128655069.shtml Why is this a self-inflicted wound? Because Bush won’t put a principled nominee out there, likely to result in political drama: he throws balls instead of strikes that could result in home runs against us. He won’t play the game at the level Dems play it - they play to win, not to lose. And that’s why we’re so frustrated! Bush’s base deserves better pitching. We deserve the establishment respect - instead of being told “we’re outside the mainstream” - that comes with playing to win, too, instead of always being Bush-leagued! This is a lost opportunity to change the legal culture. Don’t get Bush-leagued - withdraw Miers.
Comment by Orson Olson — 10/7/2005 @ 4:54 pm
Meirs is not the key battle for the Supreme Court. In the 1992 Casey case the majority votes were Blackmun, Kennedy, O’Connor, Souter and Stephens, the dissent had Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas and White. Since then, Justice White was replaced by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, Justice Blackmun was replaced by Stephen Breyer in 1994, and Chief Justice Rhenquist was replaced by John Roberts 1n 2005. Both Ginsburg and Breyer are pro-choice. Roberts’ position on abortion is unknown, as is the position of Meirs. So the count on the Supreme Court, assuming Meirs is confirmed, is as follows: pro-choice, Stephens, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer; pro-life, Scalia, Thomas; unknown, Roberts and Meirs. So the Roberts and Meirs appointments would not change the result of an up or down vote on Roe. The next appointment to the Supreme Court is the appointment that could change the Supreme Court’s position on Roe, and only if Roberts and Meirs vote pro-life. Further, the decision in the upcoming case on the constitutionality of the federal partial birth abortion statute could be unanimous (because the 14th Amendment authorizes federal legislation to implement its provisions.) The decision does not have to implicate the basic holding of Roe or Casey. There may well be less tumult in our country if the fight on Roe is held over until the next Supreme Court vacancy. But on the other hand, we do not know how General Gonzalez will vote! The controversy over these appointments does suggest that term limiting the Justices of the Supreme Court or requiring the retirement of Supreme Court Justices to senior status at age 70, would be in the best interest of the country. In both cases all sitting Justices should be grandfathered. This is one good that we will have to wait for.
Comment by rich — 10/7/2005 @ 6:12 pm
It appears most conservatives don’t really understand Bush. Bush has not picked Meirs because of some clever political strategy. He did not pick her out of cronyism. He picked her because he truly believes, as Mr. Rainey does, that she is flat out the best possible pick for the job. This is quintessential Bush. This is Bush doing what he thinks is the best for our country, not what he thinks is best for politics. This is Bush picking a person that values faith as much as he does AND who is brilliant, dedicated, and conservative when it comes to ruling on what the law actually says. And as far as her “body language of demure submissiveness”, please look up the word “meek”. Thank God we have a president who knows what meekness is — and isn’t bothered by it. To me, God has blessed our country first through giving us Bush, and now by giving us Meirs. I think she will have a large influence on the court and help shift it to the right, not just through her own votes, but because she will be able to turn some of the other justices more to the right. The ability to write sharp legal opinions is not always the most important thing. In my mind, Meirs is exactly what our country needs at this time, and I thank God for her and for Bush nominating her. Let the conservatives gripe and complain. Let some of them even vote against her. I don’t care. I want what’s best for our country and I’m so glad Bush is a president who can recognize what that is. God bless him! Seriously.
Comment by Dean Cooper — 10/8/2005 @ 10:34 am