[Map Kernow]

Because Bush chose Roberts, and Bush's picks have been impeccable.

So we've come full circle---when Bush picks a nominee from an "elite" law school, it's not "elitism." When he picks one from a "non-elite" law school, it's "elitism" to criticize the choice.

It all comes down to trusting Bush. It has not a damn thing to do with qualifications or "elitism." Not a damn thing.

[sinkspur]

So we've come full circle---when Bush picks a nominee from an "elite" law school, it's not "elitism." When he picks one from a "non-elite" law school, it's "elitism" to criticize the choice.

When one stresses, as some have done here, that only the "top schools" allow for the development of a "judicial philosophy", yes, it's elitism to criticize Miers over it.

It all comes down to trusting Bush. It has not a damn thing to do with qualifications or "elitism." Not a damn thing.

You seem to think that 25 years in corporate law count for nothing; that one can only be "qualified" if one has been engaged in "constitutional law" or had judicial experience, or left a massive paper trail.

I don't think any of these things are qualifiers for the Supreme Court, or for any court, for that matter.