I've sure been a lot nicer to Harriet Miers than a lot of (nominally) conservatives.

I'm not saying Harriet Miers is a bad person--it may be that she'd be a terrific Justice. It's just that she's so vastly unqualified. If Bush wants to appoint her to a court, why not appoint her to the Fifth Circuit? I don't think anyone would argue with appointing her to Fifth Circuit, and that's plenty prestigious. But something tells me that ain't gonna happen.....

As a sidenote, here's a map showing where I've been:



create your own map


My conclusion: there's a lot of this world that I need to see!

It says I've been to 10% of the world--they may be counting by country. I don't feel like I've seen that much.

It seems that Harriet Miers has tried eights cases to verdict. In her career.

There were three cases where either her client or the opposing party sought Supreme Court review. Never granted.

None of her cases dealt with Constitutional issues of any kind. Her work at the White House doesn't seem to involve the Constitution.

In my opinion, she's wildly unqualified. She may well be smart and personally honest, but the more one learns about it, the thinner her legal resume looks. There are thousands of commercial litigators out there who have roughly the same qualifications, and surely there are hundreds who have better qualifications. Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense to have someone on the Supreme Court with a commercial litigation background--they have plenty of career judges on there already. But I don't think she's the one to put on there.

Does Bush not understand that this is an important job? Does he just think he can appoint his cronies to any position?

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING had gone right for the Cardinals since the beat Houston in Game 1. When Berkman hit that home run tonight, I admit I gave up and went to the gym. Fortunately the gym had a TV.

Whoo-hoo!

If nothing else, it's a chance for one last game at Busch Stadium. I saw a game there with my dad a few years back (summer of 1997, I think). I don't remember who won, but Mark McGwire stole a base. Looking at his stats, that was a rare sight......

In any case, I hope their luck turns. Game 6 is Wednesday.

I'll take it. Whew.

Whew. When Roy Oswalt is on, there's no much anyone can do. Now the Cardinals have to go beat Clemens in Houston. Ugh.

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion." Bush. October 12, 2005.

Uhhhhh, right. Any other reasons? Her strong background in constitutional litigation? Her academic writings? Her philosophical positions?

Oh, wait, there aren't any of those things. Harriet Miers sounds like a very nice person (at least for a lawyer). We know virtually nothing about what she thinks. And the Senate is supposed to vote for her because she's a Christian? I don't expect to agree with much of what John Roberts does from the bench, but he was indisputably qualified for the Supreme Court. Is Miers?

Normally, I don't sit around and read the Federalist Papers (written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay to encourage states to ratify the Constitution in 1787). However, in number 76, Hamilton specifically talked about the benefits of Senate approval of Presidential nominees:

[The President] would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.


Wow. How applicable to Harriet Miers. Same state? Check. Personally allied to the President? Check. Insignificance? Maybe. Pliancy? Seems like it.

I mean, really, what has she done? Does she have any constitutional background? I'm all in favor of having someone on the Court who actually has done trial work, but is there no lawyer in America who may be more qualified? Anyone who had a First Amendment practice? For that matter, a criminal lawyer?

Terrible. Sports. Weekend.

Ok, the Cardinals won, but everyone expected that. The Sox just crumbled, looking old. Wait till next year. Michigan looked confused (albeit with a good defense). Three losses means the season is a failure. Garbage Pit Bowl, here we come!

Chris Carpenter pitched well today (saved by three double plays), but I think he's lost the Cy Young. Over the last month he was pretty mediocre. Which stands in direct contrast to the guy who should win it, Dontrelle Willis, who had just one bad start down the stretch.

Willis has one more win, one more shutout, and a better ERA. No contest. I just wonder how many voters made up their mind in August.

Harriet Miers.

Raise your hand if you'd ever heard of her. And now she's nominated for the Supreme Court? What distinguishes her for this job?

She was a partner at a big firm in Dallas. There are thousands of litigation partners at big firms across the country. At least John Roberts had argued many times in front of the Supreme Court and was considered among the best in the country at it. What has she done? Are there really no more distinguished candidates?

My new favorite player is, uhhhhh, Brandon McCarthy. He starts for the White Sox tomorrow.

(As a sidenote, if the Sox beat the Yankees tomorrow, the Sox are in the playoffs. If the White Sox beat the Tribe, the So are in the playoffs. If the Tribe wins and the Sox lose, they play Monday for a final playoff spot.)