I think what is being disputed is who is qualified to interpret the Constitution. I would expect that a document that begins with the words, "We the people" should not require a legal scholar "pre-approved" by wise men to interpret it's original intent. I would also expect that those who rise to debate should not be slimed with accusations of "drinking the purple punch" or be called simpleton "Bush-bots". But perhaps that's the sign of a party that has not stagnated... which I believe was the intent of this article.
I am a Miers-skeptic. But I agree with your statement completely. I grant the sincerity of your argument and think there's a not-unreasonable case to be made for your side of the argument.
You might consider that opponents of Miers resent being accused of being elitists who do not oppose the nomination sincerely but only because Bush didn't do it their way and want to destroy conservatism yadda yadda yadda, which is exactly what the article does.
And that's not what's being said. For one thing, being a justice on the SCOTUS involves more than just looking at the Constitution. There's a whole bewildering array of statutes and regulations and precedents on the meanings of terminologies used in said statutes and things of that nature. Secondly, as far as the Constitution itself is concerned, Miers' problem isn't her lack of experience or education in the law, but her lack of any sign of clear commitment to principle. She's never taken a strong public stand on any controversial matter. The closest that's come is abortion, but all we ever hear about is what everyone else says about her. Nothing about what she's said. That sort of thing is never an encouraging sign.
I would also expect that those who rise to debate should not be slimed with accusations of "drinking the purple punch" or be called simpleton "Bush-bots".
The Bushbots aren't the ones who merely support the nomination; they're the ones who throw fits at any sign of opposition to it. I've been around a lot of Miers threads, and from what I could see, those who make rational attempts to defend their pro-Miers position are for the most part responded to in a reciprocal fashion by those who disagree.
Hear Here! Well said! Well said indeed!
If the writers of the Constitution had wanted to restrict service on SCOTUS to a very narrow segment of society - those with long service on the bench at lower levels - it could have easily done so but they did not. Once again displaying their great wisdom IMHO!