""There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation -- which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies -- with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations."
For what's it's worth, Cass Sunstein is a big time liberal. The Bush bots will say, "aha, he's just trying to embarrass her." But another response would be that he is describing the current state of the EPC accurately, even though he would no doubt like there to be a proportionate representation requirement.
Say what you want about Leahy and Specter. YOu won't find any argument here. They are both liberal a-holes. (Makes you wonder why the Prez campaigned for Specter, though....I guess the political geniuses had some sort of master plan...but that's another issue).
But here is the reality of the situation, like it or not.
They are the top two dawgs on judiciary. If they are strongly against, it will be hard to win in cmtee. If they lose in cmtee., it will be hard to win on the floor.
I'm sure at the end of the day the administration will pull this out because they will bust a lot of (conservative) heads to do so. But this is a pretty poor start to a nomination which was supposed to be stealthily brilliant and just too clever for us rubes out in the hinterland to grasp. They have a plan, they play checkers not chess, blah blah blah.
"The Bush bots will say, "aha, he's just trying to embarrass her.""
Whatever. But I'm guessing that at least two of the CURRENT Supreme Court justices couldn't have handled this subject adroitly under deadline.