About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      


  • Check Google Page Rank

« Althouse on televising S Ct arguments | Main | "The Apprentice" (spoilers 10/13): rules schmules? »

October 12, 2005



It wouldn't bother me at all that Meirs attended SMU for law school, so long as she proved her intellectual weight elsewhere - say, by entering academia, judging or as a Supreme Court clerk or something. The nice thing about elite law schools is that there's no room to doubt the brilliance of one of their graduates.

As politically incorrect as it is to say, that level of certainty can't be (honestly) said about SMU. It strikes me as odd that this has become a touchy point in public - perhaps our fear of offending has overcome our common sense.

What proof do we have that Meirs will fully comprehend the issues presented to her as a justice? She might do fine, no doubt. But "might" is nowhere near good enough for one of the 9 pillars of our system of justice.


Do her viewpoints matter? She worked for big corporations, wouldn't that steer her feelings for many constitutional issues toward corporate interests?


Was there this much gnashing of teeth when Warren Burger was nominated? He was an alumnus of William Mitchell, after all, which gives Mitchell one Supreme Court justice more than a lot of other law schools considered more elite.

Tung Yin

Well, Warren Burger had been a Court of Appeals judge for 13 years before ascending to the Supreme Court, so he's not a good precedent to invoke re Miers. Besides, I don't think Burger is thought well of as a Justice (certainly not as a Chief Justice), so linking him to Miers is just more damning with faint praise.


I believe liberals probably sneered at Burger at the time - certainly some of my professors in law school were still sneering at him. Conservatives back then just wanted a "law and order" guy and didn't have a developed constitutional ideology of their own.


Wait and see. She seems like such a blank slate when it comes to things that matter in a nominee that I don't see how a judgment can be made at this time. Seems to me she needs to demonstrate (1) her competence to sit on the Court (i.e., show she's not an unqualified lightweight), and (2) her independence (to remove the cronyism tag). The jury (or at least the Sen. Judiciary Comm.) is still out. But the burden is squarely on her shoulders to demonstrate her worth.

The comments to this entry are closed.