Redstate

That's what the ABA, if it has any credibility, will rate her.

Are we really supposed to believe that a thorough, nationwide search for the most qualified conservative Supreme Court candidate possible yielded the president's personal attorney?  Wow, what a coincidence!  The truth is, if she was a lawyer from Missouri rather than Texas and had never had an opportunity to work for a man named George W. Bush, she would never even have come close to being considered.  This crony pick MUST be rejected.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354

So I'm still not happy with who Bush has chosen, simply because I think there are a lot of more qualified judges ( E.Jones, Alito, Luttig, K.Williams, R.Batchelor, D.Sykes, etc).

BUT, having said that, I've read a lot of things since I posted yesterday .... an interview with the former pastor of her church, some comments from a former youth pastor at the church and she is "born again" and has attended and been active in an evangelical church for 20+ years.

That tells me that she's likely to take a conservative point of view on social issues.

I believe that if confirmed she'll run towards Scalia and Thomas on the social issues which is what I'd like to see.

So while I don't think we're getting the best, I'm fine with her at this point.

The list of conservatives who have endorsed her (besides me :-) ) include the James Dobson, Jay Sekulaw (who heads the conservative counterpart to the ACLU), and Leonard Leo (who heads the very conservative Federalist Society).

Those are all solid reasons for me to at least take a wait and see point of view.

to be seeking Justices that will be above the political fray and simply will apply the Constitution as written, this statement is just shocking:

First, I have no doubt that Harriet Miers would vote as a Scalia or Thomas -- at least so long as Bush remained in office. Miers is deeply loyal to Bush and understands that Bush needs social conservative support to survive. She will do what she can to ensure that.

You are saying that Miers will be an activist judge in the worst possible way.  That she will interpret laws with an eye to keeping Bush's political base happy, regardless of the constitutionality of the law.  Isn't that pure political hackery of the worst kind?  Isn't that the destruction of the Republic and balance of powers as we know it?  And shouldn't that alone be enough for both sides of the aisle to condemn this appointment?

I think too many people could not see outside the Ivy League/paper credentials approach.  Quite frankly, that legal-academic complex has probably had undue influence on the Supreme Court for a long time, and shaking it up is probably a good thing for the country.

We need someone who would be willing to use the proper eight-letter word to describe what a male bovine leaves behind when it is appropriate.  That's been missing for a long time, I think.

that Justices are political actors.  But they are unique political actors -- they face constraints from the rule of law.  Even if Miers would rule correctly, there are distinct pressures to conform to precedent.  That's why Miers lack of an articulate legal philosophy concerns me.  I'm concerned that she is going to be co-opted by all the perks that the legal academy, legal groups like the ABA, and feminist legal groups will exert great pressure on her.

Unless Rove/Card put together an enormous spin drive, the GOP's support down south will disappear.I still don't understand this pick - even if she is a social conservative. In particular, she has no relevant experience, she is oldish and cronyism is a word being floated around alot.

As far as I can see from DownUnder, and from what I have read on NewsMax, NR et al., conservatives around the U.S. need convincing.

Why do I care about US SCOTUS noms? Strength and vigour in conservatism there flows on around the world.

As a conservative in Oz, I lament the poor state of affairs in the US atm.

I had the same reaction to that original comment.

The idea that a nominee would be praised because she or he could be counted on to show loyalty to their President, and therefore rule on decisions before the court not based on the facts of the case but rather on how it would benefit the President politically is astonishing.

For any nominee. Right, left, or center.

To hand down court decisions based not on the facts of the case but instead with an eye towards a policy outcome (i.e. Miers "understands that Bush needs social conservative support to survive. She will do what she can to ensure that") is the definition of judicial activism.

24 hours later and I am also underwhelmed....This pick is an insult to the American Public....and, to women....she has been set up to fail.....when there were many very able, stellar candidates (qualifications) who could have been counted on to be originalists....if I was a woman (I do have a wife and 2 daughters), I would be doubly upset today because I would want the woman chosen to have unquestionned credentials as any nominee should have.....even if she decides our way, it will have no weight to it...she will be perceived as being persuaded by Scalia or being loyal to what she thinks W would want.....we need each justice to be an intellectual powerhouse and to have their own minds....then, when an important decision comes down, it will be better accepted....for instance, John Roberts's views/opinions will carry great weight, especially if he chooses a side not chosen by me

The decision to push the "identity politics button" and choose a woman is OK....but, make it a credible one.....We need a conservative woman who is an intellectual powerhouse, not a lightweight

I'm with Freddie now....

CALLER: All right, let's just get right to it. Why did I send all of this money to Pat Toomey? Why did I send all this money to John Thune? I wanted the fight. I wanted this over with. I wanted them broken. I wanted a strict constructionist that we know. I wanted a known quantity that was as hard-core as you could get. Who is the judge from either Alabama or Mississippi that when he was going up to the court of appeals they said, "What do you think about abortion?" He said it was just the worst ruling ever?

RUSH: That was Bill Pryor. William Pryor.

CALLER: Bill Pryor. Exactly. I'm heartbroken. It feels like we're going to have another generation of just sitting on our heels, hoping we get lucky.

...must the candidate be an extreme conservative? Judges are supposed to be impartial and unbiased, so I would think a moderate would be more suited to such a position--someone who can consider multiple viewpoints.

Fighting to get an extremist, whether left or right, on the bench is simply an attempt to impose a particular agenda on the country--a way to use the Judicial branch to make other people conform to the way you think they should act. One of the main tenets of conservatism, though, is the importance of individual rights and less government involvement in personal affairs. Today's moderates are better at maintaining such a focus than are extremists (on either side).

Besides, what should be more of a concern regarding Miers is her pro-business stance. Her background suggests that she favors corporate interests over workers/individuals, which I find unsettling.

As the editorial put it...I have no doubt that she'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade...More than positive she wouldnt vote in favor of gay marriage or partial-birth abortion....No questions on that...but still, this nomination was supposed to go beyond that.  We were looking for a homerun...and Bush, a supposedly heavy hitter, decided to bunt.  Not only he bunted, he did so against a weak opponent.  Maybe I am wrong, but I just dont see her as an intellectual heavyweight worth rubbing elbows with Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Stouter and Ginsburg.  

I hope those "mavericks" republicans so used to upset me make an appearance and help borked this nomination.

Folks, this is ugly...and stinkin' to high heavens.

"First, I have no doubt that Harriet Miers would vote as a Scalia or Thomas -- at least so long as Bush remained in office. Miers is deeply loyal to Bush..."

Miers is loyal to Bush but is Bush loyal to conservatism? I say no. How many times do we have to be kicked before we wake up and realize that Bush is a big-government open borders liberal.

her lack of ivy-league credentials doesnt concern me....what concerns me is the fact that there's a pool of conservative legal minds available...and bush picked her? As someone said last night....this is bush at his worst...this is bush during the first debate....this aint the man I voted for....this is someone else, a very careless and sloppy version of him

Miers is not the sexy choice.  When I first it, my reaction was about the same as the prevailing conservative mood.

But to say that Miers is not qualified is off-base.  This is a person who has been White House Counsel, a White House policy maker, managing partner of one of the largest law firms in the country, and president of the Texas State Bar.  She has been named one of the Top 100 lawyers in the country a couple of times by the prestigious National Law Journal.  And, unlike a good many of the other candidates, she has actually practiced law in the recent past and for over 30 years.  Moreover, she has been heavily involved in selecting judges for the Bush Administration, which necessitates serious thought and reflection about the qualities that would make a good jurist.

It is a very unconservative thing to say that a Supreme Court justice must have been a judge (who, by definition, is an elite) and attended an elite law school in order to be qualified for the Court.  This elevates status over form.  Miers graduated from SMU.  I guarantee you that the top students at SMU are just as smart and talented as the top students at any Ivy League school.  Also, many people who have been judges for a long time were political appointments at a relatively young age and had undistinguished careers as lawyers.  

Is Miers a Bush crony?  Perhaps.  Unqualified?  No.    

Miers did not go to Harvard Law, nor was she a clerk to a Justice on the SCOTUS.  But that does not make her unqualified.  The notion that it does is elitism of the most shameful kind.  Justice Robert Jackson, perhaps the greatest writer to ever sit on the Court, other than Justice Holmes, was a graduate of Albany Law School--a school ranked well below SMU.  

Most serious law professors will tell you that you'll gain more from a district court clerkship than an appellate clerkship, but that an appellate clerkship is preferable solely because of the prestige.  Students who do not intend to teach law will frequently choose a district court solely because of the superior practical experience provided at the trial court level.  

The notion that a successful graduate of SMU is inherently less capable than a graduate of Harvard Law is patently absurd.  Having associated with judges, clerks, and law students from a very broad range of law schools, I can say that the more reliable indicator is the quality of the person's work product.  Justice Jackson proved that a great Justice can come from a non-so-great law school.  So, I urge you to reconsider your argument that Miers is unqualified.  I'm not so convinced that you really do regard her as unqualified, so much as you fear that she may vote against your interests down the road.  If that is the case, then say so.  

Either way, your analysis of Miers's nomination has been particularly featherbrained.  But, I guess that's what you would expect from someone who graduated from a sub-average law school.

If not, why wasn't she on law review?

nm

First, I have no doubt that Harriet Miers would vote as a Scalia or Thomas -- at least so long as Bush remained in office. Miers is deeply loyal to Bush and understands that Bush needs social conservative support to survive. She will do what she can to ensure that. Loyalty runs both ways between Miers and Bush. In addition to the loyalty, Miers did take a role in fighting the ABA abortion position and has contributed money to pro-life causes in the past. Every indication is that Miers will be right on the key issue for social conservatives -- life.

Loyalty to Bush is a plus?  Is Bush using FDR as his model?

I've been among those urging calm on Miers, but unwavering loyalty to the executive is a reason to reject a Supreme Court nomination.  This is a Republic (still).

Maybe she preferred to focus on practical applications instead of theory.

I like the idea of having some folks on SCOTUS who might have taken a more practical apporach to things than engaging in theory.

Who just went through the journal competition, I find that VERY hard to believe.  EVERYONE wants to add law review to their resume.

Here are some quotes about Miers in a article from the dailyreportonline.com [paid subscription required]:

Tanenbaum, the recently retired general counsel of AFC Enterprises who serves as the Georgia delegate to the ABA House of Delegates, said that if Miers were not President Bush's White House counsel, she likely would be serving as president of the ABA.

"She was that well-respected," he said. "She just has a grace and a style, as well as an intellect. I couldn't be happier for Harriet. It's going to be great for all of us."

Shanor said that the most interesting aspect of Miers' law career was that she became the first woman president of one of the 200 largest firms in the country--what is now Locke Liddell & Sapp.

"It is very hard for a person to achieve that kind of prominence among a group of generally smart and egotistical lawyers," Shanor said, "without being pretty smart and having pretty good management and political skills."

what law school she went to, that she has no judicial experience, that she wasn't a SCOTUS clerk, that she has no SCOTUS experience, per se.  Certainly, none of these things make her disqualified, necessarily.  But what does she have that I can rely on? That she's close to W and that she is a member of an evangelical church?  Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. After all this time, this is what we get.  

The ABA might view her as "qualified" at a minimum?

I graduated summa cum laude from a Top 25 law school. I did not do law review because I concluded the only reason to do was simply to impress other people. Another top student in the class agreed. Even after second year, the first five people on law review who would have been in line to be editor-in-chief decided they did not want to do it anymore, either. Not everyone chooses resume-building over quality of life.

Realize it or not your post hinges on whose view of jurisprudence is closer to the Constitution,Scalia & Thomas on one hand,Stevens & Ginsburg on the other. You may prefer the latter duo,as an example, but put in the context of judicial interpretation the original post is, or should be, less shocking.

Come on -- you can't argue she's qualified by pointing out what she's done by riding Bush's coattails (White House Counsel, a White House "policy maker," National Law Journal's 100 most "influential" lawyers -- not 100 "top" lawyers).  She held political (like Dallas City Council) and semi-political (chair of the Texas Lotto Comm'n during a scandal-plauged period) positions/  Those bar positions you tout are meaningless.  She went to a second/third-rate law school (where she apparently didn't even finish at the top of the class given that no report I've seen mentions that she did) and a second-rate law firm.  She took a job as "staff secretary" for the President.  She was one of a large team charged with researching and vetting potential Supreme Court candidates -- again, that proves nothing other than she could do what her boss wanted (but that may not necessarily be what she would do if in charge).  

You don't have to be a judge to be considered, but you better have been a brilliant lawyer (and there is no proof she has been).  You don't have to attend Harvard or another Ivy League Law School, but you shouldn't be from a second or third tier law school (and if you are, you better darn well have been at the top of your class).  And if you're looking outside the Ivy's, there a lot of places to look before you get down to SMU (Mich, Stanford, Chicago, UVa, N'western, G'town, Duke, Texas, UCLA, USC, Iowa, Mn, BU, GWU, ND, Vandy, Cornell, etc.).  

Let's face it -- her only real credentials are she's a she and she's a Friend of Bush.  That's not enough.

She may be smart, she may have good management skills and political skills, but so do thousands of others.  This is really grasping at straws.  Let's face it: this is a terrible choice resulting from (1) W really isn't with us on issues important to us and (2) the administration's self-inflicted wounds have weakened it.

How does one become the head of a large powerful law firm? It certainly helps to have a governor as a friend.

Setting aside the Law Rev issue (and most people do want to be on review, although not necessarily Ed Bd), I have not seen anything say she was summa, magna, or just plain ole cum laude.  I have not seen anything indicating she was Order of the Coif.  I have not seen anything indicating that she finished at the top of her class (just compare the nomination announcements for Roberts and Miers).  Let's face it, there are a lot of poor and mediocre lawyers out there who get ahead because of who they know, not because of who they are.  I fear Miers is one of them.

I'm not sure about others, but I never assigned "political skills" to be a prerequisite for a SCOTUS justice.  I'm nore concerned about a nominee's ability to faithfully interpret the Constitution.

Unless Miers can really pull a stellar performance in the nomination hearings, I'm not seeing her being approved.  There's too much opposition, and from both sides of the aisle.  Unless she can dazzle the Senate, she's going nowhere.

If someone agrees with Scalia and Thomas on social issues because they are "born again" and are active in an evangelical church, that's not an originalist.  That's just someone who gives you the result you want.

Unless Miers comes up with something impressive to establish her originalist credentials, which is easier said than done for someone with no judicial record, it's going to be interesting to see who actually believes in originalism and who simply views it as a means to a political end.

I don't know if it's smart to sacrifice your principles for the sake of picking up a vote on a few hot-button issues.  I'm pretty sure it's not smart when there were other candidates available who would have had clear originalist credentials and would have probably voted similarly.  But I know that the next time you accuse liberals of wanting to use the court as a "super-legislature," they're going to point back to the time the President appointed his evangelical friend.

that Miers is the sacrificial lamb and that the President will then rebound with LUTTIG.

There are as many reasons for rejecting a nominee as blades of grass in the fields but loyalty to a chief executive isn't one of them.  John Marshall was a loyal,very loyal, federalist and got along with Adams as well as anybody could,certainly better than Hamilton.  Arthur Goldberg, Byron White { who was a campaign manager for Kennedy} and ,God help us,Earl Warren also come to mind, Warren having deliverd California to candidate Eisenhower and naming his price.  Ipso facto isn't sufficient although there may be other reasons in Miers situation,e.g.Abe Fortas as a reminder.  

If the President is defeated on this nominee - one that he is personally vouching for (what else do we have) - he will be so weakened that he'll have to pick someone that there can be no doubt will be confirmed.  That would not be Luttig or anyone else that should have been his choice.  

Robert Jackson is a quintessential example of how the Miers nomination fails.  Jackson did not go to a top tier law school.  But, he worked hard as a lawyer for 20 years, became a U.S. Attorney, Solicitor General, and then Attorney General of the United States.

If Miers had such a resume, I'd be demanding that she be picked.

My favorite question, who would KERRY have nominated - now that would have been a travesty of the consitution!  

This is GREAT nomination - everbody is whinning!

This choice was a disaster. Can't you tell? He had to send Cheney out yesterday on Limbaugh and Hannity to peddle her as the Next Scalia.

It would be laughable if it weren't such a risible concept.

And you don't want her to "vote" a certain way. You wanted a justice like a Luttig or a Williams who would look at the text of the law and interpret it. In that way were we hoping to return the Court to its proper role as interpreter of the law, not as legislator.

But for the good fortune of knowing Bush and getting her current job, Miers is probably not even in the top 1,000 of able and qualified conservative lawyers in the US.  

Watching MSNBC this morning it was revealed that VP Cheney was NOT consulted on this pick before it was announced.  Big suprise, he would have told Bush what a huge mistake it would be.

Also, the confirmation hearings aren't going to start for over a month.  If the conservative drumbeat continues hopefully the White House will make her withdraw her nomination.   I'm hoping for an ABA "unqualified" rating since that would give us more ammo to dump her and pick a real nominee.

When I was growing up in Carrollton I visited Valley View Christian with my Scout troop (Troop 876).  We used to have leadership retreats (lock-ins basically) at their excellent Youth facilities.  In fact, I remember distinctly tearing my knees up pretty badly playing street hockey in their parking lot.  I also remember that they moved from their older building in Farmers Branch (which was just a couple blocks from my old church, Ridgeview Presbyterian) into a quite nicer building (farther north on Marsh Ln.)

From what I remember, however, they were very open to differing views and seemed rather moderate (to me as a 17-year-old).  

In fact, this is cut/paste directly from their website regarding beliefs:

"We try not to be dogmatic about matters on which believers hold divergent views. Our core beliefs are centered in Christ and His message as supported by Scripture. More obscure doctrine, as well as controversial issues about which the Bible is silent, are left to believers to sort out on their own. On these issues we take no official/dogmatic position."

From everything I remember, Valley View was rather mainline (perhaps they were more accommodating when the scout troop was visiting).  So, I wouldn't immediately assume that because Valley View is considered an Evangelical church that everyone that attends believes that Casey should be overturned.  In fact, the statement that "controversial issues" being "left to believers to sort out on their own" is almost identical to that of my own Presbyterian church, which has always valued the gathering of divergent viewpoints to form a common consensus through the holy spirit.

As far as the lack of Ivy credentials:

I'm tickled silly to see this in all honesty.  When Harriet is confirmed, she'll break another barrier, the percieved elitism of Ivy-level schools (based primarily on prestige and reputation, rather than merit or accomplishment).  The faculty at SMU is excellent and many great attorneys have come out of SMU Law, Harriet Miers included.  

Obviously I'm biased...I recently graduated from a Texas law school with very similar 'rankings', and I happen to be very good friends with SMU Law alumni and students.  That said, I also have friends from Ivy-level schools and, in reality, our educational experience was quite similar.

I agree that loyalty is not a disqualifier; what I object to is the notion that loyalty is somehow a "plus".  Consider Hamilton's words in Federalist No. 76:

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative 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.

(via Larry Solum, http://lsolum.blogspot.com/archives/2005_10_01_lsolum_archive.html#11283485
2634675411)

My statement that "unwavering loyalty to the executive is a reason to reject a Supreme Court nomination" is based on the fact that one can only properly serve a single master.  Here, the master should be the text of the Constitution -- not the President, regardless of party or politics.

You go to war with the president you have, not the president you wish  you have.  President Bush has always been fiercely loyal to his friends.  I don't think anybody should be suprised by this pick.  yes, there are lots of better jurists.  But the President values personal relationships over experience.  It's just a value judgment that he chose to make.

how can bush stand there in a press conference and say with a straight  face this woman was the most qualified person he could find.i don`t care if she votes with scalia right down the line, she just has no right sitting on the supreme court. she is corporate lawyer with no more knowledge of constitutional law than most any other lawyer out

there. her only qualification is she is bushes friend!

Aside from the fact that Jackson's experience was in government, I don't see how he was any more qualified than Miers.  He too was a "crony."  That Miers clerked for a federal judge, is listed as one of the best attorneys in the country, and that she was the head of the massive Texas Bar Association, are all indicators that she is just as well seasoned in the practice of law as Justice Jackson was.  In fact, it's far more difficult to be an all-star in private legal practice than it is in government service--the attorney pool is far larger and more "elite."

I agree with our friend from downunder (Imanuel C.).

I am a Proud Southerner.  A Conservative Republican  Southerner.  I can tell you that one of the things a Southerner dispises is the lack of a will to fight!  If you need any proof of that... look at the history of this region.  If we believe in an idea, we will go to the mat for it.  If we don't we will completely abandon it.

I must tell you, The Republican Party is on the verge of complete abandonment in the American Southland.  

Already movements are afoot to create a regional political party. I am not of that movement. But the kinds of action, and inaction, the Republican Party is demonstarting in the Senate, and in the White House, is/are drivng us away... in droves.

The Republican Party HAS to know it cannot sustain a winning margin without us. You'd better believe WE KNOW IT!

Ms. Miers is a terrible choice fo the SC. I have e-mailed my Senators and asked that they request the President to withdraw her nomination.  I don't expect that to happen.  So, I have written to each Republican member of the Judiciary Committee and asked that they vote NO on referring her name to the full Senate for a vote.

There is no shortage of qualified jurists out there for the President to choose from.  Jurists with known conservative credentials.  There is simply NO EXCUSE for this "fall back nominee".  NONE!

"Longstreet"  

As Solicitor General, he regularly argued cases before the Supreme Court.  Miers hasn't.

As Solicitor General and as Attorney General, he regularly dealt with issues of constitutional law.  Miers has barely.

As a practicing attorney, Jackson worked in the area of Constitutional Law.  Miers has not.

As a law student and attorney, Jackson wrote law review articles and legal/academic works.  Miers has not.

There does seem to be some consensus that it is a good thing to have a practicing lawyer on SCOTUS who wasn't a judge to "shake things up".  

Here's turning the argument of cronyism on its head: if you were the President and wanted to appoint a lawyer instead of judge, how could you appoint someone whose beliefs you could trust (and do this without any direct discussion of Roe)?

I would pick a lawyer I knew intimately.  Therefore, I think Bush did the most reasoned thing he could to safeguard against a Souter happening.  I'd be mortified if he selected a lawyer he didn't know, as really know one would know how they'd vote because they'd have no paper tril or rulings whatsoever...

Lastly - don't forget the old saw that statistically there is a greater chance that a graduate of Harvard Law is a criminal, rather than a criminal lawyer.

I have no idea whether it's true or not, but it's amusing to contemplate.

Constitutional law is not the only thing the Supreme Court does.  Around half of its docket are constitutional cases, but it also deals with huge questions of statutory interpretation around seemingly arcane issues of law.  Top-flight corporate lawyers and corporate litigators have legal skills--the method of interpreting clauses and texts like contracts.

More fundamentally, this idea that the Supreme Court should be a Constitutional Thinktank--like, put Scalia, McConnell, Posner, and for some balance you can even put a Larry Tribe or Mark Tushnet--with high level, arcane debates, really fighting it out...would be a disaster.  The Court needs diverse skills: state court experience, political experience (Senators and Governors have been useful, even if you didn't like their politics), former prosecutors, Justice Department lawyers, corporate lawyers, circuit court judges to be sure, etc.  

When there is a circuit split over the Rules of Evidence in a civil litigation case, many justices DON'T want to write the opinion, but it is vitally important that they get it right, lest they screw up and create backlogs, bad results in multi-million dollar litigation, etc.  It's good to have someone with Miers' background.  Do you want 9 people like her? No, but a court full of long-time circuit judges and professors wouldn't be a happy situation either.

In the sense that Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers signaled resolve and fortitude to the Soviet Union, does Bush's pick of Miers have the potential to be a similar event that will send opposite signals to our current adversaries?

As a student at a top law school, I hear over and over again that the students at not-so-elite schools are just as good. Sounds like pure sour grapes to me. In the course of my education, I've attended several universities and I can honestly say that the average intelligence of my classmates and the quality of the education I have received correlates precisely with the  rankings. The difference in quality between the #1 school I attended and the #10 school was quite real. I imagine it would be even more obvious between the #1 school and SMU (so low on the law school list, top university students don't even consider it).

Insisting that SC justices prove they can get into the best schools/clerkships/judgeships isn't about elitism. It's about meritocracy.

She is qualified, but the qualifications aren't conventional.

One does not make the ABA house of Delegates, run the Texas State Bar Association, White House counsel, or head up a big-name law firm by being an incompetent/unqualified hack.  We also know that she tends to have the right policy positions.

Furthermore, would corporations like Disney or Microsoft hire a law firm that was run by an incomptent/unqualified hack?

It even turns out that Harriet Miers was comments editor at Southwestern Law Review.  So that strawman just went out the window as well.

We're simply getting a different perspective on SCOTUS, one that has been largely ignored over the past 60 years.  To wit: Someone who has been there and done that in the real world without being stuck in an ivory tower.  This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

It's because she was the head of one of two decent sized firms that merged. Locke joined Liddell Sapp, and the lady was at the head of the former at the time.

Don't buy the hype. Best lawyer I've ever known, and I've known a few, came out of a State school, and not even the best one in the State.

Kinda humiliating, but take it from me: Best you learn now, before you get tagged by some guy from Thomas Cooley. It can happen.

If you don't have your head and you ass wired together when you get out of your top ranked school, you're going to get the first handed to you and the second kicked. Based on your attitude, my guess is both are going to happen on a regular basis.

O'Connor, Souter, and Thomas when they were appointed.

And the notion that she is not qualified because of where she went to the law school 35 years ago reeks to me of blue-state liberalism.

Not sure what you mean by "best lawyers," but I think it is true that the best jury lawyers often come from lower tier schools.  But we're talking about the SCOTUS, where intellectual candlepower is a heckuva lot more important than trying to convince 12 nitwits to vote for you and your client.  

Also, there's a difference between really bright people who are from a state where the best choice (i.e., a pretty good school with cheap tuition) is State U versus going to a school like SMU (which is at best the 2d best school in the state and more likely the 3rd or 4th) because you can't get into any place better.  And then you don't even excel at SMU.  

I'm talking about averages, not individuals. I certainly don't think EVERY top ten grad is necessarily a better lawyer than EVERY non-top ten grad. I fully expect to come across brilliant lawyers from no-name schools. I just don't see any evidence that Miers is a brilliant lawyer.

More sour grapes.

First, I have no doubt that Harriet Miers would vote as a Scalia or Thomas -- at least so long as Bush remained in office.

I think that's probably not going to happen. Miers is a old time conservative, in the mode of Rehnquist and O'Connor. Both she and Roberts will be reliably conservative on business issues, more willing to compromise to get a result they want and on the dissenting side only rarely.

This was the mold that O'Connor hit throughout her career, and Rehnquist after about 1990. This is the mold of the W Bush court.

One other note: Miers will be the only justice that has held elective office (Dallas City Council) replacing O'Connor (Arizona State Legislature). Politicians learn the art of compromise, as do people that rise to the top of large law firms. She'll be trying to get compromise to the conservative position, and willing to take a half a loaf rather than lose. Bush wasn't kidding when he was thanking O'Connor for her service, and seems to have extended it by a few decades.

I have known people that have graduated first in their law school classes that are terrible lawyers. Brilliant thinkers, terrible lawyers.

The fact is that there will be no evidence that Miers is "brilliant." Just as there will be no evidence that any lawyer who has dedicated his or her lives to litigating is brilliant in the intellectual sense.

Academics and judges get to pontificate and prove how they brilliant they are. Practicing lawyers represent their clients.

Miers is smart. You don't get to where she has under the circumstances where she started without being smart. Brilliant? I have no idea.

But one skill that practicing lawyers often have possess over intellectual heavyweights: judgment.

What evidence is there that she is a brilliant legal mind?

O'Connor went to Stanford and had a career as a state legislator. She knew what is was to write law, pass it, and live with the consequences. Miers has nothing to compare to that in academic credentials or experience.

Souter and Thomas? Are these our models? When the bench is packed with brilliant conservatives?(Easterbrook, Posner, Kozinksi, Luttig, the list goes on and on) Well, Thomas and Souter are no great legal minds either. Thomas follows Scalia around like a puppy, and asks so few questions at oral argument that it's easy to forget he is there. (I've forgotten the reference, but a news report about the first day of the SC session today reported that Roberts asked more questions in his first day than Thomas had asked in months.) Souter has turned out to be a great respecter of precedent who lets his colleagues lead him to the center and then the left. Is that what conservatives want?

The idea that Thomas votes in lockstep with Scalia has long since been debunked.  The two of them vote the same way no more often than Ginsburg and Breyer, for example, or any number of other ideologically-aligned pairs.

As for Souter, while not everyone may have the same opinion of his outcomes, he probably writes the clearest opinions on the Court, a quality that should be more highly prized.

The fundamental question is this:

Do you trust the president?

If you trust the president, you know that he would not sell out Christian conservatives.

If you don't trust the president, you suspect that he is not only capable of selling us out, but is fully willing to do so.

The bottom line is this: Harriet Miers will be confirmed.  Every single Republican in the Senate, from Tom Coburn and Sam Brownback (the stalwart conservatives) to Lincoln Chafee (with us until a better offer comes along) will approve her nomination.  On top of that, she will get support from the 22 Democrats and 1 "Independent" that supported John Roberts.  And on top of that, she may get a few more "yes" votes from Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, and others.

Bush needed to put a woman on the Court for obvious reasons.  Better to go with a woman well known to him than to go with a woman who tells him whatever he wants to hear and then turns on him after confirmation, the way O'Connor and Kennedy turned on Reagan, and the way Souter turned on Daddy Warbucks (my pet name for GHWB).

Just bite your tongue if you can't think of some nice things to say about Ms. Miers.

Here are a few if you need them:

1. She is a Christian Conservative.
   
2. She is an active church-goer.
   
3. She attends an evangelical denomination.
   
4. She is someone who gets things done.
   
5. She is probably pro-life (for obvious reasons, she can't come out and state her position on abortion; but the majority of commentators feel that she is likely pro-life.
   
6. She is honest.
   
7. She will read the Constitution rather than judge by feelings and emotion.

'Nuff said.

I'm a guy who hires and retains lawyers. I've hired inhouse counsel, and have retained lawyers from sole practioners to senior SEC partners at national firms. I'm the type of guy you're going to have to sit across a conference table from and convince to sign your rep letter. Several I have hired have been from your "top" law schools and my the first question I have to answer is "Does this guy think I am going to listen to his advice because of his degree, position and experience or is he going to present a rational case with pragmatism and confidence? I think you are going to get well educated after you get your education.

Bush could have hit a home run with this nomination, but instead he bunted. We'll have to wait and see whether the result will be victory nonetheless, but the point is that Bush could have removed all doubt. And that is what his base wanted.

Aside from the questions of Miers' dubious qualifications and indiscernable positions on major issues, there are at least three major problems with this type of pick.

1. It completely disheartens the base. This is why social conservatives carried Bush on their backs to the White House. It's why the right catapulted Republicans into the Congressional majority. So a conservative president could put a Supreme Court nominee before a conservative Senate. Now the president has sent the message to Mom and Pop Voter in First Church that even under these pristine conditions, clearly qualified and openly conservative candidates have no shot of getting on the High Court. Stealth candidates, especially in the wake of former Republican nominations, do not inspire voter confidence.  
   
2. It sends a message to upcoming attorneys and judges that if they are pro-life, pro-family defenders of religious liberty and have any aspirations of being on the Supreme Court someday, they better keep their mouths shut. That has a trickle-down chilling effect that could effectively silence conservative voices in arenas of legal debate and scholarship.
   
3. It puts the Democrats in a great PR position. Now, if Bush gets to make a third nomination, and he actually picks someone who is openly and legitimately conservative, the Dems can come out with guns blazing yet without appearing to be obstructionists. They can say: "Hey, we put up with Roberts. We bent over backwards for Miers. We have shown ourselves to be reasonable, but this candidate is out of the mainstream."

Bush may not have struck out, but he sure did unnecessarily leave us holding our breath to see how this play turns out.

Responding to your points --

(1) True in the short-term. But Bush knows this, and we know that Rove knows this. They are not going to squander the Republican gains of the past 5 years with another Souter. Which makes me think that a year from now, the Left will be howling about Miers, and the base will be happy.

(2) This is a very legitimate criticism. We do not want our judges holding back. But the same thing happened to Bork and that does not seem to have quelled the rise of conservatism in the lower courts. I agree, though, that some ambitious conservatives will temper their writings. This only matters in the short-term, however, if Roe is overturned. Once Roe is overturned, the Supreme Court will hopefully lose its all-or-nothing quality that has so poisoned the waters these last thirty years.

(3) The Democrats will say that, but it depends on how they vote on Miers. The next opening -- if Stevens or Ginsburg -- is going to be the bloodbath of all bloodbaths. I think it is a good idea to keep your most qualified person in tow for that one (i.e. Luttig).

...are you basing your conclusions on? Just personal observation?

(Forgive the dangling preposition, by the way.)

...it's "elitism," really -- not "blue-state liberalism." The two aren't synonymous.

...would be the problem.

Except for the last two items (both of which are opinion, not fact), do any of those "nice" things you list really matter in a judge -- someone who is not supposed to introduce bias, emotion, and ideology into interpretations of the Constitution?

Do you trust the president?

No.

it's easier to be noticed by a Governor, and respected by a President who knows you, if you're not an idiot.

Maybe her qualities as a good lawyer and intelligent person are her means of access.

To the wise comments from Thomas and Tbone, I will add that he did not nominate the class average.  He chose one person who has clearly done quite well.

Something else that people appear to be confusing is the difference between qualified and most qualified.  There are probably 2,000 people in this nation who are well qualified to sit on the SCOTUS.  I'm relatively certain that she is at least one of the 2,000.  Therefore, I believe it will be OK.

If there is a third nomination (which is possible but hard to forecast, even with the apparent reasons that Ginsberg and Stevens might be nearing the end of their tenures)...I would be stunned if Bush didn't pick an Hispanic, which freezes Lutting out of it.  He has said that he wants to make history by putting the first Hispanic on the bench (if you don't count Cardozo).  Not that he couldn't finesse both that and the base by offering Garza or a few others... but if the Miers water is under the bridge and its the summer of 2007, and if there's going to be an Hispanic nominee, would he want anyone other than AGAG to be that nominee?

You need to get out more.  I'm certainly no legal analyst but I've been reading a few of the ones here who are.

If you want to read some thread history right here on RS, search this topic and you will find quite a few JDs who are highly respectful of Thomas and his opinions.  I suspect your Ivy League Profs aren't giving you the whole story.

And speaking of the brilliant legal mind O'Connor, isn't she the one who managed to go both ways on the Michigan affirmative action cases and both ways on two ten commandment cases?

It appears that she intends to rule on every single one, measuring each of the nuances, rather than setting a clear legal ruling down.

"A growing fear is that the Democrats will try to make the case that this is another example of cronyism."  The Democrats won't have to try; a lot of Republicans are calling it cronyism (in the comments to this diary alone, let alone elswehere in the blogosphere).

I haven't seen a quote where Cheney said this and I take with a grain of salt anything on MSNBC.

Thanks.

I'm not on my first career and I have hired as many people as you have, so you can't intimidate me with the scary real world lecture. In any case, no one came here to read about you or me, so all of the personal attacks are pretty pointless.  

that Breyer was the swinger on the Ten Commandments cases.

It seems to me that there was plenty of evidence that Roberts, who spent most of his career in litigation, is brilliant and much of that came from his successful practice before the Supreme Court. Miers is certainly smart but she has done nothing to distinguish herself from tens of thousands of other smart lawyers. Aren't we setting the bar rather low for a lifetime Supreme Court position? If the President wants to give her an opportunity to show her brilliance, an appellate court position would be better choice.

to be the order of the day.  If "born again" ? What if not,and what does that have to do with a definintion of conservative jurisprudence,which I think is a little broader then that.  Please reconsider and broaden your horizons.  I know that the term activist judges is applied by liberals to judges who disagree with them but for a simple,time saving,and brief dividing line between the two,it's not the originalists/conservatives who focus on a "living constitution", sort of like a stew in the works.   Signing off for now.

...must the candidate be an extreme conservative? Judges are supposed to be impartial and unbiased, so I would think a moderate would be more suited to such a position--someone who can consider multiple viewpoints.  

Conservative judges tend to rule based upon the law, liberal judges upon desired outcomes.

Fighting to get an extremist, whether left or right, on the bench is simply an attempt to impose a particular agenda on the country--a way to use the Judicial branch to make other people conform to the way you think they should act.

Consistently, the conservative "extremist" judges sitting on the Court have been the formost defenders of individual rights on the bench.

Besides, what should be more of a concern regarding Miers is her pro-business stance. Her background suggests that she favors corporate interests over workers/individuals, which I find unsettling.

 

For the most part what you seem to be describing is someone who defends property rights over feel-good wealth redistribution plans. I hope she does have a pro-buisiness stance.

Note that one "pro-buisness" decision that was anti-property rights was Kelo. Which judges supported Kelo, which opposed?

of a top law school, I must say it ain't no sour grapes when I tell you that some of the BEST lawyers, the guys and gals you want on your side and not across the table, the best legal minds, that I have ever met were from these non-elite schools.

I have learned a long ago that the ones you need to watch out for are those who succeeded despite not having the pedigree and credentials.  Because they are smart, savvy, motivated, hardworking, intellectual when need be, and not-a-dork when need be.  Too many top-school people are lazy, dorky, and think the world owes 'em something because of their degrees.

With an attitude like yours, I think you will have some bitter lessons ahead of you.  Oh, and you can talk meritocracy when you get to be the co-managing partner of the largest law firm in your city, starting out with a major disadvantage like gender in the 1970's/80's.  (If you are not a woman, may I suggest getting really obese and losing all your hair as a somewhat-of-an-approximation of the disadvantage?)

-TS

there may have been some alliance between the pro-business folks and the property rights folks

but the new frontier is going to be individual and private property rights vs. what the big business/moneyed interests want.  Kelo was a good example of this coming show down.

You might want to Google around about the Bush admin's position on Kelo.  They wanted to support the city, not the property owners.  You might also ask yourself if Congress can get back on a holiday Sunday and pass a bill about Terri Schiavo on quick notice, why haven't they passed the pending federal anti-kelo bill?

I'm a pretty hard core capitalist, but I am becoming concerned that "pro-business" may be coming to mean something other than what it used to mean.  

> Conservative judges tend to rule based upon

> the law, liberal judges upon desired outcomes.

That sounds like kind of a sweeping statement to me.

> Consistently, the conservative "extremist"

> judges sitting on the Court have been the

> formost defenders of individual rights on

> the bench.

Again, sounds like opinion.

> For the most part what you seem to be

> describing is someone who defends property

> rights over feel-good wealth redistribution

> plans. I hope she does have a pro-buisiness

> stance.

No, not really. I'm talking about someone who's not in the corporate pocket, who doesn't AUTOMATICALLY side with pharmaceuticals over individuals, corporations over workers, upper-class over middle-class, etc. And I'm not sold on wealth-redistribution plans, but I do believe they can provide a number of economic advantages for EVERYone, rich and poor alike; but I'd have to start another post for that.

At any rate, it seems that those who are pushing for extremists, whether left or right, on the court are doing so because they have an agenda they want to promote -- not because they are interested in "rule based on the law". If you don't fall into that category, and you actually are interested in having a far right-winger on the court because you think he or she will be more likely to judge according to the Constitution -- not because he or she will vote how you want them to on a couple of issues -- then OK.

The term "born again" wasn't mine.  You have to deal with comments like the person who said:

So I'm still not happy with who Bush has chosen, simply because I think there are a lot of more qualified judges ( E.Jones, Alito, Luttig, K.Williams, R.Batchelor, D.Sykes, etc).

BUT, having said that, I've read a lot of things since I posted yesterday .... an interview with the former pastor of her church, some comments from a former youth pastor at the church and she is "born again" and has attended and been active in an evangelical church for 20+ years.

That tells me that she's likely to take a conservative point of view on social issues.

I believe that if confirmed she'll run towards Scalia and Thomas on the social issues which is what I'd like to see.

The concept is supposed to be judges who take an originalist view of the Constitution, not simply those who vote the "right way" because of their personal or religious beliefs.

What we're hearing from is a lot of people who are dubious on the former proposition, but don't really care because the word on the street is that Miers will vote the right way for the latter reason.  That's fine if you take the position that the SC is a super-legislature.

Erick is the only one who really seems to get this point.  My personal view is that "originalism" has a genuine meaning to a majority of conservatives, and is code for the remainder.  We definitely seem to be hearing from a lot of people who could give a fig for Miers' theory of constitutional interpretation so long as she casts her vote the right way, which serves to confirm my view.

and if there's going to be an Hispanic nominee, would he want anyone other than AGAG to be that nominee?

I believe the Miers pick, esp. if she is confirmed, nearly guarantees that Bush will pick Gonzales for slot #3, regardless of who resigns next.

This President has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he values personal loyalty even above the national (and party) interest.

There are 3 basic positions on Roe --

(1)  The right to abortion is absolute

(2)  Abortion is illegal under the Constitution (Goldberg's dissent in Roe)

(3)  The Constitution is silent on the issue and it is up for each state to decide.

Numbers 1 and 2 can only be reached by judges imposing their own personal values on the Constitution.  Number 3 is actually the "moderate" position, but it is classified as extreme.  

Per her bio:

Southern Methodist University School of Law, Dallas, Texas, 1970

J.D., Juris Doctor

Honors: Barristers, Moot Court Board, Kappa Beta Pi


Law Review: Comments Editor, Southwestern Law Journal, 1969 - 1970


Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, 1967


B.S., Bachelor of Science

"Siding with pharmaceuticals" is the right answer. It is usually the correct property rights, i.e., individual rights, answer. Obviously that's a generalization, but that simply means it is generally true.

Just saying being a litigator doesn't mean you have no opportunities to show that brilliant legal mind: work in the appellate division, write articles for legal journals/law review, and so on.

See here

...your only criterion for selecting a judge is extremism...

Abortion may not be your only concern, of course, and if it's not, I apologize. However, the fact that you bring it up when I never mentioned it, and that you talk only about it, suggested to me that it was indeed your main concern.

On a different note, overturning Roe won't really make any difference. Individual states will decide to allow it, and choice will continue.

...that I follow what you're saying here.

Mass murder will continue in some States.

It's a start.

and this is why:

when it comes to interpreting the constitution, no one is free of bias.  Furthermore, the English language is notoriously imprecise.

Take the first amendment for example.  Where, in this amendment, is free expression protected?

If you say "nowhere," you are a strict constructionist.  If you say, "right there, where it says, 'freedom of speech,'" you are a "living constitution" advocate (aka a "spirit of the constitution" advocate).

A person's personal morality makes a big difference when it comes to making decisions on how far congress can go to stop the spread of child pornography.  It also plays into whether or not the Ten Commandments are seen as a divisive bit of religious propaganda or a part of the history of Western culture (comparable to the code of Hammurabi).

A person's belief in Christian teachings also shapes his or her values.  Whether, for example, the principle of individual freedom is more important that the principle that every human life has a right to continue until its natural end.  Indeed, even the question of what exactly constitutes "a natural end" of a human life comes before the Supreme Court.

Does every justice have to be Christian?  Not at all.  I believe that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and even atheists could make great judges as long as they are committed to the same values that faithful people are committed to.  Values such as the respect for the dignity of every human being, born or unborn, healthy or sick, sane or insane.  Being a church-going person says a lot about how much a person's religious beliefs motivate him or her to action.

That is why all of my above listed items (never introduced as "facts" but, rather, as constructive comments that could be made about Ms. Miers) are important.

How is Roberts exactly brilliant?

He has argued a number of times before the Supreme Court. Does that make him brilliant?

So has Goldstein. I would not consider him brilliant. Just being an appellate lawyer does not make you brilliant.

We can infer Roberts is a well-respected advocate, but what has he written or wrote that marks him as brilliant or an original thinker?

And I know of no practicing lawyer that has written serious law review article. There's no time for that outside of academia.

Whatever. You have your beliefs, I have mine. I'd just rather you not try to force yours on me.

didn't have to wear disposable hat. :-)

But you're asking for an activist judge who make the world the way you want it to be. Statements such as "respect for the dignity of every human being, born or unborn" reflects a view of abortion that not everyone shares, and pursuing it involves tampering with individual rights (of women, in this case). Now, I would expect you to argue that fetuses have the same individual rights, and that's a difference between us. However, it demonstrates that you want a judge who is going to promote your own viewpoint and force it on others. I admit, I want a judge who will share my point of view, but my point of view is to let everyone make their own choice.

> I believe that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and even atheists could make great judges as long as they are committed to the same values that faithful people are committed to.

Again, that demonstrates a mindset that all people of faith think the same way that you do, or as each other, and that's not the case. True, bias is inescapable whenever interpretation is involved, and so a judge needs to be able to take all views into consideration. I think moderates are probably better at such thinking rather than someone who is hard-left or hard-right and who wants to shape the world to match their views.

> Being a church-going person says a lot about how much a person's religious beliefs motivate him or her to action.

So can an athiest not be a good judge, then?

I don't see why this should be any different than my belief that you don't get to kill the mailman.

based on an idea. God-given inalienable rights. Most countries are defined by race or ethnicity. Anyone can become an American by allegiance to the ideals of the Declaration and the Constitution which are based on judeo-christian values, but I've known Hindus and others of other religions that embrace what this country stands for and are as American as one can be.

I would have a hard time voting for an atheist beacuse I question their judgment, wisdom and honesty. I would vote for a agnostic that is humble enough to say I don't know.

...people should be allowed to do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. If a person doesn't consider abortion to be murder, and she's OK with getting one, then let her.

Of course, I know the argument from your side is that a fetus is every bit as alive and conscious as the woman carrying it, and so you're protecting it by fighting against abortions.

Similarly, I'd say that it goes against the conservative ideal of individual rights to keep someone from getting an abortion. You'd probably say, What about the individual rights of the "unborn"? It's just an ideological difference that's not going to get resolved.

Personally, though, my opinion is that you're not your brother's (or sister's) keeper, so it's not really your business whether someone gets an abortion or not. (I'm using "you" generically, not in reference to yourself.)

I'd give you my email address so we could continue this offline, if you'd like, but I'm sure I'd get slammed by all the other pro-lifers on this blog.

> "I've known Hindus and others of other religions that embrace what this country stands for and are as American as one can be."

Again, I mean this respectfully, but what does that mean? What does this country stand for? What does it mean to be "as American as one can be"? I'm not trying to be flip in asking that; rather, I'm suggesting that different people have different opinions of what this country and being an American is all about; some of those opinions may match yours. But I'm sure that a good portion of the almost 300 million of us have an opinion of what this country needs that's different from the way you (or I) think. You may think that your view is the right one; they feel the same way about their own views.

Basically, a judge who bases his or her votes on a particular ideology, at least without due consideration of others, is forcing that ideology on people who may not want it. Regardless of the judeo-christian values that influenced the Constitution, that's not what this country is about. In my opinion, anyway.

And an atheist can be just as wise and honest as anyone. Why should not believing in God have anything to do with how well someone can consider multiple viewpoints to give an unbiased (to the extent possible) interpretation of the Consititution?

God-given inalienable rights. The freedom to make your own way and pursue your own version of the american dream. Its about freedom that the government can't take way because the government didn't give it to us.

Judges should apply the constitution, as written. I agree no ideology should be legislated from the bench. Its in elections where ideologies compete for votes.

Yes, you're right. I agree with all of that.

 I won't say I'm totally confused,let's just say confused.  I'm not sure why I should take up yyour post, inclusive of "born again" with somebody else.  More so as you at the end of your post you refer to "evangelical friends".  I am glad however you dropped the issue of activist judges,smart move.  Considering I was responding to another blogger before yours we may be just building a molehill of confusion, I never made an issue of born again or evangelicals so your two posts put together are,well,mysterious . No hard feelings.

How is Roberts brilliant? Well, I am no expert in constitutional law, so I can only defer to the experts. The consensus opinion among scholars and practitioners who were familiar with his work was that he was exceptional. If you can find anyone who knows anything about consitutional law who thinks he's mediocre, I'm all ears.

I'd also go into law review at top law school, supreme court clerkship, etc., but I see there are plenty of folks here that think such things mean nothing.

Also, I do know practicing lawyers who publish in law reviews. It's not common, but lawyers who are thinking of transitioning to academia or just have research interests make time for it.