Rebutting the Six Arguments of the Pro-Miers Folks
John Hawkins has an excellent post
on what he fairly characterizes as the six arguments of the folks supporting Harriet Miers (which includes me).
His argument is mostly fair although I would quibble with this:That's not to say Harriet Miers is a talentless hack. She has probably accomplished more than 98% of the people in this country during her lifetime. Yet and still, to say she's not in the same ballpark qualifications-wise as candidates like Michael W. McConnell and Michael Luttig is an understatement. Not only is she not in the same ballpark, she's not in the same city, the same state, or even the same country. It's like she's on a boat somewhere heading towards the country. This is why so many people are disparaging her qualifications. It's because she is such a lightweight compared to the other people who were rumored to be in consideration.
The 98% figure is ridiculously low. Have 2% of the people been the head of a 400-lawyer firm? Have 2% been the head of their state bar association? Have 2% been White House Counsel?
Let's talk a bit about Clarence Thomas. Was he considered one of the top potential picks for the Supreme Court when he was chosen? Did he have credentials like Roberts? He also had only one year of experience as a judge (Roberts had two); I don't hear anybody on the right saying that he was unqualified for that reason.
And yet, there's nobody on the Republican side who would argue that he's been anything less than a superb justice.
The rest of John's article is thoughtful and well-reasoned. Good people can disagree on this nomination.