Harriet's Murder Boards

Outtakes from the secret practice sessions of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. In today’s leaked transcript, Ed Gillespie puts the candidate through her paces…

EG: I think the preparations have gone very well so far. You've really done your homework! So let’s start with your opening statement. From hereon, I’ll be Sen. Arlen Specter. Please state your name for the record.

HM: I’m John Roberts.

EG: Heh heh, very funny, Harriet. But remember, you weren’t supposed to repeat John Robert’s answers. You were just supposed to memorize them. We want his opinions to sound like your own.

HM: I thought you wanted my answers to sound like the President’s.

EG: Well, yes, but not exactly. Try to put everything in your own words. We’ll come back to the opening statement. Let’s start off with one of the first tough questions you’ll be asked. [Coughs and assumes the voice of Arlen Specter] Ms. Miers, many people have questioned your qualifications for the Supreme Court. They say you lack experience in constitutional law. Tell us why you think you're qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

HM: I think I should be on the Supreme Court because the President thinks I should be on it. I trust in his judgment. I think others should trust in his judgment as well.

EG: Okay, let’s pause for a moment here. You’ve just repeated our media talking point, which is fine—it’s good!—but we’re going to have to be a little more expansive during the actual hearings.

HM: They should trust in the Vice President’s judgment too?

EG: No, no, no. I mean, yes, everyone should trust in the Vice President’s judgment too, but that’s not the answer we’re going for. This is your moment to really shine, to boast of your credentials but also highlight the fact that you are an ordinary person who will bring common sense and practical experience to the bench--to make any doubters on the committee feel petty and sexist for wanting to stop your nomination.

HM: But it’s true that I don’t have any background in constitutional law…

EG: Exactly! That’s not why you’re here. You’re here because you’re one hell of a corporate lawyer AND a woman. This is the moment to bring up the Bar Association, your leadership at the law firm, your terrific work as White House counsel. That you’ve thought very, very hard about a lot of issues you’ll be dealing with on the court. For example, there was that recent case involving a city’s right to take land from one private owner and give it to another…

HM: “Kelo vs. City of New London.”

EG: Right! Tell me your opinion of that one.

HM: John Roberts said…

EG: No, your opinion.

EG: Take your time.

EG: Pauses are good. They make you seem thoughtful.

EG: No hurry.

EG: Whenever you’re ready.

HM: I guess I’d refer to what I answered in a similar case.

EG: Excellent. And what was that?

HM: I like M&Ms and I like sharing.

EG: Excuse me?

HM: I don’t know if you saw the nice article a former White House colleague of mine, David Kuo, wrote about me, but one of my opinions that he cited concerned the distribution of Presidential M&Ms at the Mess. Those who didn’t have Mess privileges also didn’t have access to the little boxes of M&Ms they give out at the door—as you know, Ed, they make lovely souvenirs for friends and family, embossed as they are with the Presidential seal. So I kept a supply of them at my desk and gave them to those who could not get them for themselves. Mr. Kuo was one of those people. And when he asked why I did it, I said, “I like M&Ms and I like sharing.” He offers this as a reason why I should be on the Supreme Court. Maybe I could adapt that view to the property issue at stake in the Kelo case. Something along the lines of, “We like your land and we like sharing.”

EG: It’s certainly a good answer but we may want to refine it somewhat—put it in a more sophisticated legal context. Let’s keep working on that one. How about something more up your alley. You’ve written on diversity…

HM: Oh yes. Quite a bit.

EG: So let’s take the racial preferences case of Grutter v. Bollinger…

HM: I prefer to call it a diversity case.

EG: Fine. Please continue.

HM: What about it?

EG: Give me your views.

HM: It came before the court when I was in the White House. There were many diverse opinions of it. Some were more diverse than others.

EG: Did you have anything particular to say about it?

HM: I would have hesitated to take a stance on so diverse an issue as diversity.

EG: That might bother some of the conservative senators on the committee.

HM: Maybe it would be helpful if I cited some of my previous writings on this topic, if I may.

EG: Excellent. Go ahead.

HM: It’s a long quote. I’ll read it if you don’t mind. I published it in the Texas Law Journal in 1992: “Several weeks ago I looked around the room at the Bar Leaders Conference and felt a great sense of hope. The discussion was lively, the participants were diverse, and the mutual respect and admiration felt among the group was reassuring. I thought to myself - we should always be this way. Any realization of our differences in where we came from, what we did as lawyers, or whether we were persons of color, of a particular ethnicity, or male or female, seemed irrelevant. We were focused on matters of mutual concern for professionals serving the public and our colleagues.

"So we would always be - the example of respecting each other's differences, cooperating with each other, solving problems, and working hard. We are strongest capitalizing on the benefits of our diversity.”

EG: Lovely. Now can you put it in a more legal context--perhaps relating to the actual case?

HM: I don’t think I should get into specifics. I don’t want to comment on past rulings.

EG: Good--you can always resort to that when you're unsure. Okay, let’s move on. We’re running out of time for today’s session. The last thing I want to throw at you is one of the “surprise” personal questions senators will sometimes ask. It’s their equivalent of Barbara Walter’s “if you were a tree?” question.

HM: A poplar.

EG: Sorry?

HM: I’d be a poplar. Because their roots are all interconnected. It’s a beautiful metaphor for the individual and the community.

EG: Fine. Good answer. But what I was going to ask you was this: What books have you recently enjoyed?

HM: That’s an easy one. It’s already in the public record. As you know, I don’t get much time to read, as I’m often up until 2 and 3 a.m. in the White House, correcting the grammar and spelling on many important legal briefs. So when I do read a book, it’s usually something the President has given me, one he’s enjoyed. We both love the works of John Grisham.

EG: Grisham is, uh, okay. Do you think we could come up with a more appropriate choice? Something more serious?

HM: I think Grisham is very appropriate. His books aren't just thrillers, you know. They’re legal thrillers. You learn a lot about the law from them—sometimes even constitutional law.

EG: I thought maybe you’d like to say here something like Jean Smith’s biography of Chief Justice Marshall. Or if you’re stumped, you could say anything by Martin Luther King.

HM: But I haven’t read those. And might I remind you, Ed, that I’m under oath.

EG: I’ll loan you the biography. Try to have it read by Friday.

HM: Okay.

EG: [mumbled] I believe you can also get it on SparkNotes.

HM: Oh Ed, don't be such a silly. Of course I'll have the book read by then. Excuse me, I just noticed something. [HM removes a bottle of white-out from her purse and dabs it on a piece of paper in front of her on the table.]

EG: Is something wrong?

HM: Very. I just noticed on these briefing notes that my name is misspelled. The letter “I” is transposed with the "e" in “Miers.” I hate it when that happens.

EG: Let’s break for the day…