I have to strongly disagree with you here. There are many people who can think in very complex and sophisticated ways, but have a hard time translating those ideas and thoughts onto paper, in a way that an English teacher like yourself would be happy with. This is a much wider phenomena than you claim.
I would like some evidence of your assertions. A brilliant, complex mind can grasp the mechanics of writing--usage, grammar, and punctuation--readily enough so that even if the initial writing is rough, it inevitably transforms itself into an intelligible, coherent result, an accomplishment the poor thinker can never attain.
Regards . . . Penny
Those who can't write should not be on the Supreme Court. This nominee is a supreme brown-noser, and that is exactly the quality that the Federalist Papers warned against, resulting in the Senate's constitutional role of "advise and consent" on SCOTUS nominations. That the President should have fallen for the most obsequious character since Uriah Heep in "Oliver Twist" does not speak well for his judgement.
Let's raise our standards. Just this once.
And there are many teachers, English or otherwise, who can't think in very complex ways, either.
I have always had a gift for writing, but I suck at math. When I was a child, being good in math was considered the hallmark of a bright student. Writing and language skills were not considered to be worth anything. In fact, where (and when) I went to school, kids who were not good in math were discouraged from applying to college, but were shunted, instead, to trade (boys) or secretarial (girls) schools.
Ms. Miers is older than I am. She was raised in an era when girls were expected to become good wives and mothers. Period. Yet she got a degree in math and a degree in the law while working to help pay for her own education. Degrees in both math and the law indicate that Ms. Miers' IQ scores are well above average.
Teacher Penny, you come across to me just like the closed-minded teachers of my childhood who could not see potential in any kid who was weak in math.
As we all know, we have had persons who could display flawless grammar skills, combined with degrees from prestigious universities, who devoted their many talents to causes that were and are antithetical to the ideas of liberty.
The following excerpt is from a December 17, 2000, article entitled, "Getting inside the Bush Mind," by Aubrey Immelman, a St. Cloud Times columnist. In it, the writer notes, among other things:
. . . .
"More difficult to fathom, yet equally important, is the role of character and other personal qualities in shaping presidential performance.
"What follows is an early assessment of President-elect Bush's likely leadership style and policy preferences, based on his distinctively outgoing, extraverted personality, and using the framework provided by Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein in his book, 'The Presidential Difference.'
[edit}
"The best public communicators among postwar presidents — Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton — were all outgoing presidents; however, Bush lacks their rhetoric skills.
"But, as Greenstein notes, eloquence is partially a product of effort and experience. . . . Bush's personality does not provide the optimal basis for organizational strength, though he will likely improve on what Greenstein calls the 'oxymoronic organization of the Clinton White House.'
"Vision
"Vision, in one sense, refers to the power to inspire. Bush likely will fall short of the rhetorically proficient presidents mentioned earlier. But equally important, vision 'encompasses consistency of viewpoint,' writes Greenstein, who cites Ronald Reagan as the prototype of a visionary president 'committed to a handful of verities.'
"In this regard Bush, whose agenda as governor revolved around four key programs, sounds positively Reaganesque. Thus, regarding 'the vision thing,' the problem with Bush will not be so much lack of principle as insufficient immersion in policy detail.
"Strategic intelligence
"While lacking the intellectual curiosity of Kennedy or Clinton, or the brilliance of a Richard Nixon, Bush's intellect has been grossly underrated.
"With a reported SAT score of 1,206, Bush likely equals or exceeds John F. Kennedy's intelligence quotient, weighing in at 119. But, as Greenstein notes — pointing to the policy accomplishments of Truman and Reagan, 'two presidents who were marked by cognitive limitations' — intelligence 'as measured by standardized tests is not the sole cause of presidential effectiveness.'"
Might it also be that "intelligence"--as measured by political pundits using casual handwritten notes and lack of judicial paper trail items--may not be the sole cause of effective interpretation of the Founders' Constitution?
Five years from the time of the above piece by Immelman, one must admit that this President's vision has maintained a "consistency of viewpoint" in public statements on the kind of person he would choose to be a justice. Are his critics suggesting that he was lying all that time?
Some artificial standards are being put forth now concerning the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.
Perhaps "conservatives" might need to review their Constitution and the explanations provided by the Framers in Federalist 76 (taking it as a whole, and in context) as to the prescribed authority for naming and the prescribed process for approving the nominee. Then, if they truly wish to "conserve" constitutional principle, they might wish to allow the Constitution's own procedure to go forth in an orderly fashion, hear the candidate, and then pressure their Senators to vote against her if, after hearing and watching her, they feel she is unqualified.
Miers' legacy to future generations will not be her thoughts, but her words.