My recollection is that many who were quoted in the popular media about Roberts referred to their personal experiences in working with him (including when he was in a position, by the way, that not only tends to be assigned to persons especially learned in the law, but which relates directly to the competence required on the Court), their experiences arguing before him and the impression they formed from his opinions, and the talent he displayed as a successful advocate before the Supreme Court. The relative transparency of his skills is one of the things I have seen cited most often. Whether Miers has exhibited similar skills is appropriately the subject of inquiry, on which reasonable people can disagree.
So I don't understand the comment that "everyone assumes Roberts clearly is 'smart'" -- however one may regard their assessments on the merits, many were relying non-credentialing data -- or the assumption that what tipped the scale in comparisons with Miers was *necessarily* their respective law schools or, failing that, their genders. Perhaps those factors play substantial roles in the assessments, but the similarities are not so profound as to lead ineluctably to them. One might as well have stated that, given similar educational backgrounds and government service, the only possible basis for judgments about Bush and Kerry was height.
P.S. It's true, of course, that schools influence perceived qualifications for many of the positions Roberts has attained -- not to mention hiring patterns, and internal promotions at, major law firms! -- and personally I am very receptive to arguments that similar attainments and successes are all the more remarkable if someone has an educational or social background (or race or gender) that was likely to have made things harder for them. I have no idea how true that was true for Miers in the Dallas market.
________________________________
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of David W. Opderbeck
Sent: Thu 10/13/2005 11:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Miers and Maureen Dowd
<em>Is there really an assumption that everyone who goes to Harvard or Yale is smarter than everyone who goes to, say, a very good state school</em>
Look at Miers vs. Roberts as Exhibit A here. Everyone assumes Roberts clearly is "smart." Why? Like Miers, he was a political lawyer (Miers actually holds a higher government position than Roberts ever did). True, Roberts served as a judge, but that also is a political appointment, and he didn't do anything particularly revolutionary as a judge. Miers, on the other hand, succeeded splendidly as a managing partner of a big private law firm, which doesn't usually happen without some measure of smarts. Put all this in the scales, and it seems to balance out pretty evenly. What tips the scales? Roberts went to presigious schools, Miers didn't. Yes, Roberts also clerked for the Supreme Court -- but you only get to do that if you go to the prestigious schools, so that's kind of a chicken and egg thing. I guess the other thing to throw on the scales is gender. So, man with prestigious schools on resume = "smart," woman without prestigious schools on resume = "average at best."
David W. Opderbeck
Assistant Professor of Business Law
Baruch College, City University of New York
(646) 312-3602
[log in to unmask]
Rosemary Hartigan <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk" <[log in to unmask]>
10/13/2005 10:57 AM AST
Please respond to "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
To: [log in to unmask]
cc:
bcc:
Subject: Re: Miers and Maureen Dowd
Is there really an assumption that everyone who goes to Harvard or Yale is smarter than everyone who goes to, say, a very good state school? I suppose there still is, but it's not one that I hold.. I think we have ample evidence today to dispute that theory. Legacy admissions, discrimination, etc. W is an excellent example of someone who would not have been admitted with his scores and grades had he come from more humble origins, like the rest of us. I think he would have been in a community college.
I'm not particularly a Mier's supporter, but I know that when she went to law school, there were still very few women being admitted. I went to University of Wisconsin sometime after she was in law school, and my class was still only 25% women -- and UW is a progressive school. I know law schools are up to 50% or more women, now, but how quickly we forget.
I like Maureen Dowd, but like Ginny, I am uncomfortable with the tone of this criticism. She had an article last weekend about how the White House is becoming like "Wisteria Lane" of "Desperate Housewives" because Bush surrounds himself with "wives" -- adoring women like Condi, Karen Hughes, Laura, and Miers. There is clearly some sexism inherent in this satire.
Rosemary Hartigan
Director, Business and Executive Programs, and Collegiate Professor
Graduate School of Management and Techology
University of Maryland University College
David W. Opderbeck wrote:
All this talk of Miers not being "smart enough" bugs me at a visceral level. If Miers had gone to Harvard and Yale, and then had gone on to do everything she did in her professional life, we wouldn't be having this discussion about her intellect. (Judicial experience is another matter.) It seems to me that the "intellect" questions relate only to her paper credentials and not to what she's actually achieved. Why does this bother me so viscerally? Well, I didn't go to Harvard or Yale either (I did go to NYU Law School, but that was for an LL.M., which is what dumb people like me do to try and look smart). And, despite some pretty respectable professional achievements since law school, when I decided to try to become an academic, the schools I attended 20 years ago were a huge liability. Thankfully, everything seems to be working out ok, but the extent to which one's performance on a silly standardized entrance exam decades ago (and/or one's ability to afford more "prestigious" schooling) influences the perception of "intelligence" in the legal profession is absurd.
David W. Opderbeck
Assistant Professor of Business Law
Baruch College, City University of New York
(646) 312-3602
[log in to unmask]
"Prenkert, Jamie D" <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk" <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
10/13/2005 09:22 AM
Please respond to "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
To: [log in to unmask]
cc:
bcc:
Subject: Re: Miers and Maureen Dowd
Taking a pass on whether Dowd is being unfair, she should at least be chastised for being unoriginal. She's simply cribbing Harriet Miers's Blog!!! <http://harrietmiers.blogspot.com/> , which has been up since about 5 minutes after the nomination was announced. Because of that timing, it strikes me as funny, if broad, parody rather than piling on in a suspiciously elitist and/or sexist way. (I'm not endorsing the argument that Dowd's article or other criticisms of Miers are, in fact, based in elitism and sexism, I just thought I'd point out Dowd's literary "crime" of being derivative, and poorly derivative at that.)
"OMG!!! I totally posted on the ALSB Talk listserv! Computers rock!!!"
Jamie
Jamie Darin Prenkert
Assistant Professor of Business Law
Kelley School of Business, IndianaUniversity
1309 East Tenth Street, Room 233
Bloomington, Indiana47405
Ph: 812-856-5069
Fax: 812-856-4695
[log in to unmask]
________________________________
From:Academyof Legal Studiesin Business(ALSB) Talk [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ginny Maurer
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 8:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Miers and Maureen Dowd
Huh? The notes, birthday cards, etc. are from the Texas State Library and Archives. That's the source of the correspondence, but the correspondence is not the source of the matter stated, nor does it, IMHO, affirm the truth of the matter stated.
It would not surprise me greatly to learn that Oliver Wendell Holmes sent birthday cards and wrote thank you notes to people who did thoughtful things for him. Or that he they offered personal encouragement to people they liked and supported. In short, what is the big deal, and why does this correspondence make it fair game to characterize a 60+ year old lawyer, a senior partner in a major law firm, a former president of the Texasbar, and counsel to the president as a little girl?
To go a step further, it is clear enough to me that Cheney, Rummy, etc. are W syncophants, but you do not find them belittled, literally, as little children.
Not that there is anything wrong with little children.
G.
[IMAGE]
Bill Shaw <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: "Academyof LegalStudies in Business(ALSB) Talk" <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
10/13/2005 05:57 AM
________________________________
Please respond to "Academyof Legal Studiesin Business(ALSB) Talk"
________________________________
[IMAGE]
To
[IMAGE]
[log in to unmask]
[IMAGE]
cc
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
bcc
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Subject
[IMAGE]
Miers and Maureen Dowd
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Texas StateLibrary and Archives Commission. That's the source Dowd cites. You'll have to finally concede, Ginny, if George W. proved you need no talent
to become president, Miers proves you need none to be named a S.C. justice.
If you can validate Dowd's source, what more would it take to conclude that
this starry-eyed partisan is a danger to the Republic?
=========
Well, yes, certainly have to give her that. Maureen Dowd ain't dumb or inarticulate.
Also, I just checked in on the Drudge Report and read the Harriet-George correspondence to which Dowd undoubtedly alludes, and that places it in better context for me.
Nonetheless, I read every single thank-you note, birthday card, and professional correspondence, and still see nothing to ridicule. I just see a gracious, polite, well-mannered person.
Ginny
[IMAGE]Robert Emerson <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: "Academyof LegalStudies in Business(ALSB) Talk" <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
10/12/2005 10:16 PM AST
________________________________
Please respond to "Academyof Legal Studiesin Business(ALSB) Talk"
________________________________
[IMAGE]To [IMAGE]
[log in to unmask][IMAGE]
cc [IMAGE]
[IMAGE]bcc [IMAGE]
[IMAGE]Subject [IMAGE]
Miers and Maureen Dowd[IMAGE][IMAGE]
Regardless, when you can work starry eyed and stare decisis into the same sentence, you've really done something.
Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: Ginny Maurer
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Nominee
OK, Bill, my silence lasted all of 10 seconds!
Maureen Dowd should have her mouth washed out with soap, or a strong detergent, or maybe just lye.
Is anyone else tired of the rampant elitism and sexism with which Miers is being received?
And this is not to be confounded with whether I think she is an appropriate nominee to the Court. I am skeptical but waiting to see whether she blows away the judiciary committee in the hearings or whether her nomination implodes during the hearings. Seems to me either could happen. To hear critics of the right or the left, male or female, diss her for not going to Harvard or Yale or make fun of her for being a woman is disheartening in the least. The American deserves better.
Well, maybe I should rethink that last assertion.
Ginny [silent no longer but still embarrassed]
* [IMAGE]
Bill Shaw <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: "Academyof LegalStudies in Business(ALSB) Talk" <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
10/12/2005 08:51 PM
________________________________
Please respond to "Academyof Legal Studiesin Business(ALSB) Talk"
________________________________
* [IMAGE]
To
* [IMAGE]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
* [log in to unmask]
* [IMAGE]
cc
* [IMAGE]
* [IMAGE]
bcc
* [IMAGE]
* [IMAGE]
Subject
* [IMAGE]
* Supreme Court Nominee
* [IMAGE]
* [IMAGE]
Professor Emerson, Here's one other entry you may want to add to add
to your survey:
The New York Times
"To Sir With Love"
Maureen Dowd
p. A27
Wed, October 12, 2005
"How can I thank you, Sir? I never, never expected the Supreme
Court. Phat! I hope Clarence doesn't make me watch 'Debbie Does
Dallas" again. That movie is so anti-Texan! I miss you already!
But now I will be able to serve your interests -- and those of your
family -- forever and ever. If there's another recount that you need
help with, count on me. They say I don't have experience, but I've
had the experience of polishing the boots of the wisest ruler since
Solomon. I may not know stare decisis, but I know when to be starry
eyed. I await your instructions, Master."
Source: TexasStateLibrary and Archives Commission.
TAKE ME NOW LORD.
|
