Laura Bush says sexism possible in Miers criticism

Reuters ^ | Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:46 AM ET | By Tabassum Zakaria

[Sometimes A River]

COVINGTON, Louisiana (Reuters) - First lady Laura Bush joined her husband in defending his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and said it was possible some critics were being sexist in their opposition to Harriet Miers.

"That's possible, I think that's possible," Mrs. Bush said when asked on NBC's "Today Show" whether criticism that Miers lacked intellectual heft were sexist in nature. She said Miers' accomplishments as a lawyer were a role model to young women.

...

Mrs. Bush, who had publicly supported the nomination of a woman to the high court, noted that Miers had been president of the Texas Bar Association.

"I know Harriet well, I know how accomplished she is, I know how many times she's broken the glass ceiling herself. She is a role model for young women around our country," she said.

[tomahawk]

Is Laura Bush becoming dingbat material?

[cyncooper]

Mrs. Bush didn't call anyone any names.

[Sometimes A River]

She's no dummy, she's just reepating the Administrations position on Miers: If you're against Miers, you are a sexist (and elitist).

Sounds desperate, which is a good thingm I guess, considering I want them to withdraw her name.

[XJarhead]

Laura was looking for an explanation why someone could charge such an accomplished woman with being an intellectual lightweight, and concluded that it could be sexism.

I think even that overstates it. She didn't pull a charge of sexism out of thin air. She wasn't even the one who raised the issue of sexism in the first place. She was asked whether gender might have something to do with the opposition. She said yes. What's she supposed to say -- No?

[claudiustg]

---Laura Bush is checkmating the Dems. Some will see this; others won't.---

An excellent insight!

[WaterDragon]

Thanks. That's good info.

[beckett]

One of the very few times in six years that the First Lady has opened her mouth on a substantive issue, and she says something stupid. The charge is an insult.

The Administration is imploding.

[af_vet_rr]

Kinda sounds like the Dems when they charge Republicans hate children when they oppose federally funded school lunches...or want to kill Seniors when they oppose new entilements.

The first thing I thought when I scanned the headline on Google was that they confused Laura with one of the liberals.

Sad to see Laura fall into the "if you disagree with me, then that must make you a whatever" trap.

[jess35]

It's naive to pretend that some of the comments against her aren't a bit sexist...considering a few incredibly patronizing remarks I've seen from pundits and by some on this board. I just don't think that's a driving force with the vast majority of people who've come out against her. It's more of a matter of people being upset because no one the list of candidates they've been told are outstanding (by pundits) was nominated. They want what they think is a known quantity...again, because they've been told that X, Y and Z are "acceptable".

That said, I wouldn't have made that charge in public.

[jla]

I myself interpret GarySpFc's intention as being that Marshall and Miers share similar mindsets and behavior patterns. It's not that Harriet and Marshall think alike, but rather that they reason alike. These then would/should make them amenable to pro-constructionists.

And I believe that Harriet's relative inexperience in constitutional law is a plus for her going in.
She'll bring a new approach in rulings of the SCOTUS in that she won't think it a prerequisite to necessarily pore over every available word dealing with a particular case. No, she might just review an argument for a case and then judge how are Constitution, or the framer's intent, deals with it. How many times has a ruling based on precedent, whether that precedent is true or not to the Constitution, brought derision and scorn from the pro-constructionists?
There is no doubting Harriet's intelligence. And I don't think there should be any doubting her ability to read 'document A', (a case), and determine it's relevancy to 'document B', (the United States Constitution).

[jess35]

Are we to assume that ANYONE in America who lacks constitutional and judicial experience is an intellectual lightweight?

Only if you're an elitist snob. ;)

[empirekin768]

---Laura Bush is checkmating the Dems.---

We aren't this sychophantic and fanatical are we? I mean geez, is there anything the president could say or do that some of our people wouldn't rationalize into a bold plan to undo the Democrats? I went along with this thinking on the education bill, campaign finance reform, the prescription drug benefit, TSA nationalization, the homeland security bureaucracy...sigh.

[Sometimes A River]

I've already addressed that and did acknowledge that out of 60 million+ Bush voters, that some are indeed sexist.

[jess35]

I'm not primarily speaking of the voters...but some of the pundits.

[TUAN_JIM]

"What's wrong with being sexy?"

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

>>>"It's unfortunate that Laura Bush has chosen to diminish her stature by mischaracterizing legitimate opposition to this embarrassing nomination by delegitimizing Miers' opponents."

I agree. This was obviously a main stream media setup, and Laura should have been smart enough to pass on this no-win question. But she took it to help her husband. It was a unfortunate and stupid move on her part because it was so blatantly wrong.

All the critics are calling Miers unqualified because there were other females with much better qualifications (knew constitutional law, etc.).

Hoppy

[TAdams8591]

Can women be sexist against there own sex? I had no idea until you told me. /sarcasm

If the nominee were a man, they would have been referring to him as a janitor.

The references were not made because of her gender, but because of her lack of qualification in comparison to the other candidates.

[TAdams8591]

BTW, both Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter most preferred Janice Rogers Brown.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

If the nominee were a man, they would have been referring to him as a janitor.

I have no doubt (and I think it's terrible, personally). I'm just speculating as to what one might be referring to when they say sexism is a possibility. I haven't read everything; maybe there's something else.

I know who Coulter and Malkin want. I'm a little ashamed of both of them right now, to be honest. I don't mind people having opposition to this woman; I mind the rhetoric and some of the reasoning I've seen (specifically referring to the "elite" thing here).

[PatriotGirl827]

Excellent post.