His work on the bench is reported to have been impressive, he had a long-established record as a conservative, he was too far from the President for there to be even a whiff of cronyism, and (I'm almost afraid to say this) he was a graduate of Yale Law School, which is the most selective law school in the country. (Harvard Law is very big, Yale is tiny).
"he was a graduate of Yale Law School, which is the most selective law school in the country."
And I think we just nailed a big part of what this opposition is about ..... if we're honest. Why is being a "lightweight" from Yale preferable to being a "lightweight" from SMU? Seems to me the latter might have much more potential. ;-)
I jest, but only a little.
Well, it was bandied about at the time --whether true or not-- that Thomas got into Yale only because of affirmative action.
And whatever Thomas's LSAT scores or GPA at Yale were, we never heard about them.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm NOT saying LSAT scores or stellar GPAs impress me much. (Nor am I saying Clarence Thomas was "unqualified" -- quite the opposite. He's my favorite justice.)
I'm only pointing out that this parallels what people are saying about Miers's record at SMU -- the assumption being that if we're not hearing about it, it must not have been too good.
As for Thomas's record in his very short time on the federal bench, I'd like to know who characterized it as "impressive," and HOW exactly it was "impressive." (I'm not disputing he's been impressive since he's been at SCOTUS.)