This fussbudget grammarian is after Miers again
Harriet Miers doesn’t write well and has a poor grasp of grammar, and that ought to disqualify her as a Supreme Court nominee. That much is settled; now we read, via Powerline, that Ed Whelan has turned against Miers after reading this Washington Post story on several speeches (here and here) she made in the early 90′s. Whelan’s objections were serious and substantive:
I have tried hard to give the White House and Harriet Miers the benefit of the doubt on her nomination and to withhold judgment. But I can no longer do so. The damage from this disastrous selection has gotten worse and worse every day, and there is every reason to think that it will continue to compound.
The badly muddled thinking in the speech that Miers delivered in 1993 (and that the Washington Post reported on today) is only the latest in a mounting pile of evidence that makes it implausible to hold out hope any longer that Miers will prove to be a sound judicial conservative. I don’t see how anything she says at her hearing — or anything else that realistically emerges between now and then — can offset this evidence.
We think the speeches expose once again a matter at least as serious as her judicial philosophy: the woman can’t write proper English. Get a load of this:
Problems (in addition to sentence structure): (a) the correct word is “used” not “use” in the first complete sentence; and (b) it’s “it’s” not “its” in the last line. Our apologies to all those who think we are mean to Harriet Miers, but proper spelling and grammar are the most minimal requirements for a job in which one is expected to write for a living.
UPDATE
More evidence that she can’t write from BOTW.
UPDATE II
More from the speech from Polipundit:
“The necessary continued requirements by the Courts for progress frequently has the effect of hardening feelings and slowing the process and in my view the ultimate beneift of a society whose wealth is diversity and who pulls together against common enemies.”
Oy!
UPDATE III
George Neumayr’s piece on the same subject is very funny.

October 26th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
And you think Miers wrote this because? The speech has absolutely no attribution. How do you know it isn’t a transcription done by someone who was attending the luncheon?