Harriet Miers’ is known to be hard-working. Highly specific where details are concerned. Exceptionally attentive to details to the extent that she has problems delegating decisions and tasks and devotes whatever time is necessary because of that to complete tasks herself after she’s first understood all she can about issues involved with the tasks.
These are not the qualities of a reckless, error-prone individual. It’s as yet not revealed whether these careful characteristics, however, accompany an exceptional mind as to legal reasoning and understanding. But, to satisfy some who wonder or even worry about her character and values, Miers is an evangelical Protestant Christian (a Baptist, I read) and as a loyal individual committed to civic contributions through and to her religious faith practice, she’s known to be humble, service oriented and not at all vain. Plain, even, if her appearance can be considered here, plain as in, it’s a good thing.
I didn’t have a personal recoil to the Harriet Miers nomination as some conservatives did and found the crushing onset of criticism about her startling. I wasn’t prepared for it, given that there wasn’t anything objectionable then (nor now) about Miers such that she’d merit that degree of criticism by the very people who were anticipated to support her: other conservatives.
The plainness that is Harret Miers appears to be offensive to some — her suggestion of the average and not the exceptional, what with “average” from an elitist perspective being very low indeed. To the rest of us, average means — the short list here — she didn’t attend Ivy League and otherwise higher-socially-profiled educational institutions, but she did earn a degree in law that qualified her to represent President Bush before and after Bush assumed the Presidency as then-later White House Counsel. Not too bad for average, not too bad at all.
I hear/read that they aren’t criticizing Miers as an individual but then conclude their disapproval of her nomination is only as to the nomination (“just as to her as a nominee”) for a seat on the Supreme Court, but to my view, if that isn’t criticizing Miers as an individual, I don’t know what is. It’s being explained away as that conservatives had an expectation of an indebtedness by President Bush to them for their work in getting Bush into office and among the goals involved was to land conservatives on the Supreme Court and instead, he’s nominated Harriet Miers…a conservative just not an illustrious, important conservative, or at least, not important enough.
At least, that’s what I get from reading some of the criticism from the Right. I include myself in the “conservative” side of things but I didn’t have the same offended response to the announcement of Miers as nominee — my response was that I’d like to read more about her, give her and President Bush for having confidence in her, a chance to show us who she is.
In her favor: Miers has introduced herself with the statement that she understands the Supreme Court judiciary as not legislative (“I will not legislate from the bench if confirmed to the Supreme Court”) and that she does understand those positions as being responsible for interpreting and applying our U.S. Constituion to issues before the Court.
Nothing objectionable there. Actually, everything necessary to satisfy conservatives as to what we conservatives want from the judiciary, but it hasn’t stifled the criticism from some about Miers and therein is the mystery: how Miers can satisfy the popular requests for a nominee (a woman is preferred for this current position by many, a conservative who would not legislate from the bench, a conservative who would interpret and apply the Constitution to issues, a conservative who would influence liberals currently on the Court to assist in not legislating from the bench and in applying the Constitution) and be so rejectable in the process.
That last part is what is bothering some and it seems they perceive Miers as being lesser-than what and who they had in mind as to influencing the existing liberals on the Court: and there it is, the elitism, the negative assumption that because Miers isn’t grand enough, she’ll be instead influenced by the liberals if she should be confirmed to the Court and not do the influencing otherwise.
Miers, the little horse who could, but the odds are against her.