October 14, 2005

New Reason to Support Harriet Miers

Hatched by Dafydd

I have been pretty much supportive all along, based solely on the grounds that I think it would be bad for the party if she were slammed out of bounds before she even got a hearing. Then I became more strongly attracted to the notion that we really ought always to have at least one justice who isn't a former judge and isn't an "expert" on the Constitution: "convictions make convicts," as Timothy Leary used to say (I mean when he was alive), and experts who spend all their lives studying the writings of other experts in their subject tend to have a very subjective view indeed.

Bush believes Miers is Reaganesque in the sense of having an innate grasp of right and wrong in many circumstances, and I've seen nothing so far from her opponents that persuades me to the contrary. Examples of trivial mistakes or instances of stepping carefully through a landmine are no more persuasive than are the few mistakes Reagan himself made -- such as yanking our "peacekeeping" troops out of Lebanon directly after the Beirut massacre.

But I have just come across evidence that I haven't seen anywhere else... and this now puts me unabashedly in her corner. I now truly hope she will be confirmed.

Major Disclaimer!

I neither confirm nor deny that Patterico at Patterico's Pontifications may or may not have ever blogged on this subject, nor in the case that he has, do I either agree or disagree or even know what he may have said, in the event that he may have said anything about this at all. I am only an egg. I am Sgt. Schultz.

With that out of the way, we may proceed.

I was just reading the Wikipedia biography of Miss Miers, and I came across the following datum that absolutely clinched the decision for me:

Miers graduated from Southern Methodist University with a bachelor's degree in mathematics (1967) and from its law school with a Juris Doctor degree (1970) .

I suspect we have never had a Supreme Court Justice who actually passed classes in differential equations, possibly even partial differential equations -- and five of you reading this know how amazing that would be! -- group theory, Galois Theory, functional analysis, dynamical systems, and probably even mathematical logic. Imagine a justice who understood how to tell a convergent from a divergent infinite series, how to do a LaPlace Transform, and what Fourier Analysis is for! Or even just a justice who is comfortable thinking in N-space.

Harriet Miers has my full and unstinting support (I was about to say unqualified support, but that is too ambiguous).

Yay, team!

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 14, 2005, at the time of 5:41 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/115

Comments

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

Well, that would be excellent Dafydd, if that were actually why Bush chose her. But we both know that GW chose her because ideology trumps excellence for him. I too have a BS in mathematics, but i think my my MS in mathematical statistics trumps your MA.
My old pony, Rhys, the finest Welshman I ever knew, could jump his own height. You cannot even jump out of your pathetic narrow box of robotic partisianship.

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2005 6:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: karrde

As a math major myself, I have often wondered why formal logic wasn't taught to all students with the same rigor as it is taught to math students.

I see unspoken axioms, uncertain lemmas, dubious postulates, and misapplied proofs all the time in political and social discussion.

You forgot one big mathematical idea that could affect her as a judge: the Axiom of Choice.

The above hissed in response by: karrde [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2005 6:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

Re: matoko kusanagi at October 14, 2005 06:34 PM

And now we see why, ironically, a BA (or BS) in Math is a positive thing, but an MS in Math is a negative. Apparently, the process of getting an MS makes the function unstable somehow. Too much time spent around math professors is my guess.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2005 8:24 PM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

well, RBMN, actually, my MS has exposed me to a considerable amount of real science, since i have done experimental design and analysis for thesis work and dissertation work in many domanins. ;-)

Pray tell, why do you think GW nominated Miers? I will hazard a guess that the Axiom of Choice means little to him, the Law of Large Numbers is influential. However, i think his sampling theory is seriously flawed--from taking the temperature of known blogspace on this issue, it seems he is woefully out of touch with his base. ;-)

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2005 9:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2005 10:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

Re: matoko kusanagi at October 14, 2005 09:26 PM

> Pray tell, why do you think GW nominated Miers?

My best guess is, if you take GW into an operating room, give him a sex change operation, give him hormone treatments, send him through law school, let him practice law for awhile, what you'll have is ... Harriet Miers. That's my best guess about why he picked Miers. He picked himself in a blue dress.

And since GW (even in a dress) admires Thomas and Scalia most, of all the justices, I'm not worried about Miers.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2005 10:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

RBMN, lol, 'zactly.
And that is my objection to her--no demigoguery allowed.

Now, why is every one so upset?

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 15, 2005 12:01 AM

The following hissed in response by: Teafran

Ahem...

I would just like to point out that, when Ms. Miers was nominated by the President, my very first comment was, in an open forum on Usenet, rec.boats, "At last - somebody with the capacity to think".

Which was weeks before you I believe - eat my shorts.

Seriously, I'm firmly behind the nomination of Ms. Miers for several reasons. Most important, she isn't a legal elitist leaving several forests worth of legal opinions - she apparently doens't have an opinion on everything under the sun and that is, frankly, refreshing.

Secondly, she isn't from a major Ivy League college or university. That should be enough all by it'self.

I like this nomination if only for the fact that it stuck in the craw of all those conservative elitists who are just as bad as the liberal elitists in terms of snoot and snob.

As a side note, I believe we need to restructure the Supreme Court in the following manner:

A minimum age of 50 years old.

Have to have held a regular job, not law clerk or anything in the legal profession for at least five years.

The actual Court should be constructed as follows:

Two regular citizens with no legal training - high school education preferred - college graduate acceptable, but no post graduate education.

A practicing lawyer.

A law professor.

That's it - A Supreme Court for the masses.

The above hissed in response by: Teafran [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 15, 2005 3:52 AM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

lol, the supreme court of mediocrity!
affirmative action and quotas for the very makeup of the court!

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 15, 2005 5:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: LiveFreeOrDie

I agree with your analysis, Dafydd. I have been thinking the same thing.

She is more likely to understand the chaos and complexity views of emergence, and understand the importance of federalism in our system.

I have a SPECIFIC question that could be asked, which would let us know. I was actually thinking about doing a truly scientific poll to see if I'm right, but I don't have the resources.

The question could be asked during hearings. If you are interested, and can coordinate with a couple of other blogs, I think its possible to set it up.

Let me know if you would like me to expand. Please contact through the email.

Regards.

The above hissed in response by: LiveFreeOrDie [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 15, 2005 2:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

She is more likely to understand the chaos and complexity views of emergence
ha ha, live free, my math background has the opposite effect on me, i have deduced ID is a psuedo-science. Could i remind you all that Jimmah Carter was an evangelical christian? Hardly a sterling reccommendation.

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 15, 2005 2:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

Re: LiveFreeOrDie at October 15, 2005 02:05 PM

She is more likely to understand the chaos and complexity views of emergence, and understand the importance of federalism in our system.

True, but rather because Miers was on the Dallas City Council for a couple years. I don't think there's anything more "American," in a political sense, than average citizens testifying, passionately, about some highly-contested issue at an overflowing city council meeting. That's about as American as it gets. When it works, the torches and pitchforks aren't needed.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 15, 2005 3:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: RedTory

At the risk of being overly simplistic or naïve, might I suggest that equating a presumed grasp of mathematical logic with well-reasoned jurisprudence (however one wishes to define that) is really a case of comparing apples and oranges. Common law is a good deal suppler and subject to interpretation than is the case with mathematics. Good grief, if this is your criterion for the Supreme Court, then we might as well just appoint computers to the bench — an equally silly notion.

The above hissed in response by: RedTory [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 15, 2005 9:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Red Tory:

...a case of comparing apples and oranges.

Oranges are more citrusy than apples, but apples have an edible skin.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2005 4:44 AM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

then we might as well just appoint computers to the bench
lol, I'm all for that! The Singularity is coming, after all. Dafydd, which do you think is more damaging to our country, BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) or BCDNWS (Bush Can Do No Wrong Syndrome)?

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2005 6:58 AM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

Re: matoko kusanagi at October 16, 2005 06:58 AM

BCDNWS is mostly myth. "Bush Can Do No Wrong Syndrome" is as rare these days as polio in the United States. The MSM's "America can do no right" vaccine has been exceptionally effective in killing every "bug" in sight.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2005 8:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

RBMN, false.
Miers is a classic case history. Look at all the Bushbots desperately scrabbling for a justification. Including you and Dafydd and Hugh Hewitt.
But you are right about the MSM. Watergate and Viet Nam were their glory days, and they ever seek a chance to return to taking down a president or deciding the outcome of a war.
Illegal immigration may yet destroy us as surely as the terrorists wish to.
Terri's Law was idiocy. ID in schools is idiocy. Equivalencing ASCR and ESCR is idiocy, and i am sick of of seeing my conservative brethern trying to justify those positions. Those are all case histories.
On the other hand, GW is doing a bitchin' job on the WoT, i can't fault him a particle--does that mean i should just STFU about everything else?

Shouldn't our hosts be posting the good news, BTW? Dafydd is going to be correct, that all provinces have ratified the iraqi constitution.

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2005 9:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: LiveFreeOrDie

matoko kusanagi: "ha ha, live free, my math background has the opposite effect on me, i have deduced ID is a psuedo-science."

Perhaps you should check your bias, matoko. I have the same view of ID. It is not science, though it is sufficiently orthogonal to science to not be disprovable by science.

WHEN were we talking about ID? I said "understand the importance of federalism in our system."

The importance of federalism is clear from chaos and complexity theory, and from Nash's insight on game theory.

To summarize, the global view cannot dectect everything in the local views, and the local views cannot detect everything in the global view.

If the global view forces its abstraction onto the local views, information is lost, and thus the emergent properties of the system are rarified - there is LESS emergence. The global system becomes deflationary, as we are seeing in global regulatory states (states without internal federalism).

Please respond, matoko, while admitting you made a mistake.
The very mistake that is predicted by the math we are talking about.

The above hissed in response by: LiveFreeOrDie [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2005 10:52 AM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

sssssssssorrry, live free, i am absolutely and unequivocabley wrong. That was a knee jerk reaction to an oblique mention of complexity theory, said theory having been used in blogspace ad nauseum in feeble attempts to discredit evolution.
i humbly apolo.
Your argument about federalism is strong, and i completely agree. But how likely is it that Miers will apply advanced mathematics to jurisprudence? GW picked her (he said) because her views are isomorphic with his, and i find very little respect in him for the principles of science.

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2005 11:50 AM

The following hissed in response by: LiveFreeOrDie

matoko :"But how likely is it that Miers will apply advanced mathematics to jurisprudence?"

Yeah, that would be me reaching, hoping.... as we watch the structural underpinings of liberty evaporate. The argument is weak, if not wrong. It is a small insight to help give me hope.

Thank you for the reply.

The above hissed in response by: LiveFreeOrDie [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2005 12:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: John Judge

I knew a lawyer who had majored in mathematics. He told me that Dean Erwin Griswold (dean of Harvard Law School from 1946-1067) had majored in mathematics and the Dean believed mathematics prepares a person very well for the law.

I checked out the Internet, and discovered the following excerpt (pp 9-10) from a 1992 interview of Dean Griswold, an Oral History Interview by the DC Circuit. http://www.dcchs.org/ErwinNGriswold/GRISWOLD.pdf

Q: What did you major in?
A: Political science and mathematics both.
Q: That’s an interesting combination. You were interestedin mathematics?
A: Yes, I was a first-class follower in mathematics.
Q: What does that mean?
A: I could understand what other people had done, and I wouldn’t get lost in class and in dealing with problems in the field which had been taught, but I came to the conclusion that I was no innovator. To be a great mathematician, or to be an excellent mathematician, you had to be able to come up with new solutions and new answers, and I didn’t feel that I was first-class in that.
Q: Have you found that mathematical training or frame of mind has been helpful in the law?
A: I’m pretty sure it has, or at any rate, the qualities of mind which made me tolerably good in mathematics were very useful in legal work -- careful use of words,precise thinking. But I don’t want to have this printed in the newspaper, but I have a very fine wife, but I think one of the points of friction occasionally is that she doesn’t use words very clearly, frequently does not use words very precisely. I try to pin her down, and she doesn’t like to be pinned down, and the net result is I don’t quite understand what she means by what she says. I think people who have had legal training are more careful in their use of words.
Q: That’s probably true of mathematical training.
A: She went to Stanford and graduated with distinction, so she isn’t dumb by any means. I suppose -- take a poet. Most poets don’t use words very precisely.
Q: And that’s what makes their poetry good, the lack of precision.
A: They paint pictures . . .
Q: Impressions . . .
A: So, there are various ways of doing it. I just happen to like the precise way.

The above hissed in response by: John Judge [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2005 7:56 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

John Judge:

Yes, that's very much the way I think about it: I would describe it (in fact I did, this evening) as the ability to think about the abstract... with precision.

Engineers speak with precision but rarely about the abstract; philosophers speak very much in the abstract but with little precision, very fuzzily.

Remind me to tell you my mathematician, physicist, psychologist, and engineer joke.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2005 10:32 PM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

I remain unconvinced that the reason behind her choice is anything but the fact that she's GW's idea-clone.

Biologists speak only to chemists,
while chemists speak only to physicists.
Physicists speak only to mathematicians,
and mathematicians speak only to god.

I think being a mathematician and being a lawyer are nearly mutually exclusive, or at least very rare.
Frankly, i think we're going to be able to establish the biochemichal causality behind intelligence, and find that genetics and molecular biology determines IQ in large part. It is part of my whole non-egalitarian elistist intellectual snob philosophy. All men are equal under the law, but not under the genes. ;)

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 17, 2005 7:57 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Motoko Kusanagi:

I've always heard:

Here's to dear old Boston,
The home of the bean and the cod,
Where the Cabots speak only to Lodges,
And the Lodges speak only to God.

Note that I have never postulated that George Bush selected Miers because of her degree in mathematics; I said only that is the major reason that I, myself, support her.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 17, 2005 12:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Dafydd,

Thanks with putting up with humble me, so far anyway. Feel free to delete, edit Properly (as you have, so far), and to basically correct me when i am obviously wrong or too "provocative". ;)

To Fellow/er (i think that 'Feller' is Feminine here?!?) Posters here,

Don't insult me, and i won't insult you (none have here). Anyway, sorry for the offense that my posts have clearly caused for at least some here, for i try not to offend. Skip them if You so desire, but don't take out Your anger on BL, please...so to speak of Dafydd doing a great job at muzzling me at the proper times.

OK (i feel like a Liberal again - grin)...Now, Dafydd, in another 'Miers Thread', i had mentioned that this 'Miers Debate' might actually "strengthen" the Conservative Movement (something like that).

El Rushbo has a great Op-Ed out today: Crackdown, not a "Crackup". Click on the link at his site (it's free today), and it will lead to the Op-Ed at The Wall Street Journal:

Holding Court
There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup."

Of course, the Democrat Party and their Mainstream Media misread the Dualistic words in their rush to continue their focus on bashing W. It seems that they had interpreted the Op-Ed as meaning a "crackdown" on W.

This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. - Rush Limbaugh

It’s all there in "Black and White", and yet MSM missed it once again. First, Americans need to dump the Democrat Party, whilst warning the Republican Party at the same time. Second, Republican Leadership best take notice (*ATTENTION*: Senators and Representatives) if they expect to be around after the "First". Cut...Cut...Cut is the Karmic Key here. Don't waste time trying to explain it to Liberals. Apparently the Republican Leadership has already taken note. Anyway, check out the Op-Ed.

KårmiÇømmünîs†

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 17, 2005 3:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

Dafydd, lol, fersure that is where those couplets came from. I too would support Miers if i thought mathematics would influence her thought. But i listened to GW. He said, "i know what she thinks and she will think that way for the next twenty years." ergo, she is incapable or unwilling to generate independent and original thought on issues using the power of mathematics.
Mathematics is surely the highest good. I am a follower of Max Tegmark myself.

In other words, our successful theories are not mathematics approximating physics, but mathematics approximating mathematics.

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 18, 2005 12:06 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2013 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved