11 October 2005

From Ann Althouse:
Harriet Miers is associated with no theory of constitutional interpretation. She appears to have never shown any interest in constitutional analysis at all.

Who is this Harriet Miers, this practicing lawyer, who presumes to go on the Court and write the opinions we [professors] must spend our lives reading and analyzing?
. . . [S]he is just an attorney. The very idea!

Thinking about it that way has begun to thaw my opposition to Miers. . . . Perhaps the Court is harmed by an excess of interest in the theoretical. A solid, experienced lawyer like Miers, with no real background in constitutional law, might look at the text, the precedents, the briefs, and use the standard lawyer's methods to resolve the problem at hand. What is wrong with having that style of analysis in the mix? We need a safeguard against the excessively theoretical.
Cool! If we take that a step further we should try to get someone on the court who spends all his time in court actually trying cases.

Wait, that's me!!!

And here's my campaign poster:

Contact your Senator today. Remember it's advise and consent. All we have to do is convince 51 Senators that the only consent they will give is if the President takes their advice and nominates me.

[addendum] For those of ya'll coming here via Orin's direction: I, perhaps to the detriment of my candidacy, have a paper trail on the issue of Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a Criminal Activity.

Posts (in order): 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6


Steve Dillard (aka Feddie) said...

Too funny. But I like mine better. :)

Windypundit said...

I swear, when I started reading how underqualified Miers was, the first thought I had was "Wow, if that's all it takes, someone should tell Lammers that he has a shot at this job!"

Hmm. That does't quite sound right.

But seriously, if the Justices were elected, and you and her were the choices, I'd punch "Lammers" and never look back.