The K-Lo clarification
In "A tale of two Warrens," I cautiously noted Harriet Miers's purported admiration for "Warren" as her favorite Supreme Court Justice. At NRO's Bench Memos, Katherine Jean Lopez clarifies the Washington Post anecdote regarding Senator Leahy's meeting with Harriert Miers yesterday. K-Lo says she was told:
"Miers was asked about Justices she admired. She responded that she admired different Justices for different reasons, including Warren — interrupted by Senator Leahy — Burger for his administrative skills.If true, this makes the story planted in the Post a kissing cousin of the malicious falsehood Senator Durbin retailed to Jonathan Turley regarding Judge Roberts.Reasonable people could ask whether Burger was a great administrator, but the comment is taken out of context by the Washington Post. Miers didn't express admiration for his jurisprudence."
Assuming that K-Lo's version of the story is true, however, I think that this anecdote reflects poorly on Ms. Miers as well. Judicial administration is the province of the chief justice; Burger reputedly devoted great care to his supervisory responsibilities in the federal judicial system. Miers is nominated to serve as an associate justice; the position entails minimal concerns regarding judicial administration. Whether or not Warren Burger was in fact a great judicial administrator, any admiration she may harbor for Warren Burger's work in judicial administration is almost completely irrelevant to her prospective service.
But I find it almost unbelievable that, if asked which Supreme Court justice she most admires, Miers's train of thought would have run to Warren Burger and judicial administration. Surely this version of the story bespeaks the limited nature of Miers's exposure to, or reflection on, constitutional law and history. It seems to me that the K-Lo clarification reflects poorly on Miers in a different but equally important way than the Post version of the anecdote.
UPDATE: Certainly the most amiable dissent from my take comes from reader Curt Evans. Evans writes:
Come on, man, if Miers had said that her favor justice was O'Connor, you folks would have come down on her like a ton of bricks. If she had said it was Rehnquist, Scalia or Thomas, that would have brought the Dems down on her. Talking about Burger and administration was a nice dodge. And, anyway, with the exception of a few missteps like Roe, when Burger threw in his vote with a clear majority, Burger was a good, solid Republican vote and no disgrace to the Court. You guys are are giving no quarter.Burger, of course, was one of the good, solid Republican votes in the 7-2 Roe majority. If Miers knows only a little constitutional history, it really isn't difficult to come up with good justices that might count in her favor and couldn't be used against her. Perhaps she included them in the part of the answer not reported in K-Lo's correction.
