From comments:
Friends who have worked with her in the Counsel’s Office say she is “wicked smart” and “not getting enough credit from the media.” I think it was appropriate for Bush to replace O’Connor with a woman. And it’s not that unusual for a supreme court justice to come from outside the judiciary….seems that diversity of legal experience on the Court would even be a good thing. Anyway, I just wanted to offer a slight counterpoint, although I don’t have anything glowing to say.
Obviously, Miers is no dope–a person couldn’t rise to where she is without being very intelligent. I don’t think anybody is making her out to be Dan Quayle. But there are plenty of “wicked smart” lawyers. Not all of them belong on the Supreme Court. And I just have a hard time getting beyond the idea that the reason why Bush appointed her was that she was loyal, he knew and trusted her and thought she’d be easily confirmable. Were it not for her personal connection to the president, I don’t think that anybody would even be mentioning her as a potential nominee.
Phil,
(fancy website!) I don’t get it either. At first I thought this was a ruse — that Bush, knowing this was a guaranteed reject, was putting Miers out there first to show that he was capable of nominating a woman. And then, after putting up a man, defending himself by saying he had tried. I just don’t get why Miers is so confirmable. Are Democrats that scared of W. that they prefer an Evangelical politico best buddy to a Bush-picked judge?