Saturday, October 29


I'm fed up with the tenor of anti-Miers sentiment, coming mostly from the right wing.

Here are the areas where I had problems with the lady's nomination:
(1) Her apparent myopia where the president is concerned (He's the most brilliant person I ever met) and the questioning of her ability to be independent as a SCOTUS justice
(2) Her lack of a reviewable record
(3) The injection (by Bush, mind, not the lady herself) of her religion into the debate
(4) The ambiguity surrounding her judicial philosophy
(5) Multiple actions as Bush's Counsel including questionable practices as Texas Lottery Commissioner to protect him from revelations about his Texas National Air Guard service, the BushCo position on use of torture, etc.

All those are legitimate and rational reasons for opposing her confirmation.

Here's where I get mad:
(1) Attacks on her academic background. SMU is sometimes called "the Harvard of the Southwest" -- So what if it's not the real Harvard, Yale, Princeton or another Ivy Leaguer? It IS possible, you elitists (Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, take note!), to receive a first-rate education outside of New England.
(2) Denigrations of her accomplishments as a woman lawyer in an era and region that made the current "glass ceiling" look benevolent.
(3) Mockery of her hairstyles, dress, marital status/dating record to which no male nominee would ever have to seriously respond.
(4) The implication that because she is not a constitutional expert and has no judicial experience, she cannot be a valuable contributor to the Court. Tell that to John Marshall, Earl Warren, William Rehnquist, Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis, Lewis Powell, and Abe Fortas.

I opposed Mier's confirmation, but I also am incensed at the humiliations to which she has been subjected. Male nominees such as Robert Bork have failed confirmation on grounds that had nothing to do with their school affiliations and personal appearance. She should have received the same treatment.


Post a Comment

<< Home