When the initial cries of horror rose in response to the Miers nomination, we were told to be patient. She may not have fancy credentials, we were assured, but Miers is a lawyer with great legal acumen. After all, "you can't be White House counsel and not have some legal acumen." (Yes, a constitutional law professor said that.)
We have not been very patient, but we have been scouring Miers' record in search of evidence that she is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Here is what we know:
1. She needs a "crash course in constitutional law." (Arlen Specter)
2. She has no "ability to write clearly and argue incisively." (David Brooks)
3. She pays tithing, but not bar dues.
Last night, Tucker Carlson interviewed Brad Blakeman, whom Carlson described as "a former deputy assistant to President Bush [who] shared an office with Harriet Miers for three years." The conversation became a heated when Carlson asked, "Can you give me a couple of her opinions on constitutional issues that might help our viewers understand who she is and what she might do if she's confirmed?"
Blakeman was evasive, and when pressed, started referring to the "far right" -- as if that explains anything. When Carlson accused him of not having an argument for Harriet Miers, Blakeman responded,
I do have an argument. The argument is, let the process work as intended. The president has the right to send up his nominee to the advice and consent of the Senate.... And not the advice and dissent of a Senate committee. She deserves a full vote of the Senate, and she also deserves the ability to sit in the witness chair and answer your tough questions and other people's questions. (Amy Ridenour has the full transcript.)
This is just so tiresome! In the two and a half weeks since her nomination, we have gone from "trust the President, she will have her votes in the right place" to "who cares what you sexist, elitist, fringe players have to say because the President has the power nominate!"
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200d8345c8bec53ef
Links to weblogs that reference Miers' Qualifications:
1. Posted by Dave! on October 19, 2005 @ 21:35 | Permalink
"the President has the power nominate!"
That is *entirely* consistent with this administration's position on nearly all of its judicial nominees. You expect different in this case? "Up or down vote" was mantra then, why shouldn't it be the mantra now?
2. Posted by Gordon Smith on October 19, 2005 @ 21:48 | Permalink
What I expect is a nominee who can be defended on the merits, not someone whose primary qualification is that Bush knows her heart.
| 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 |





