Even her "guide" through the process, ex-Senator Coats, has admitted she isn't qualified or even very smart. After all in defense of the spectacular Ms. Miers, who by the way has now cancelled meetings with Senators so she can actually read the Constitution, Sen. Coats said: "If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole."
Sounds an awful lot like the defense offered by Senator Roman Hruska for G. Harold Carswell, a similarly less than qualified nominee of Richard Nixon's, who as you may remember is responsible for giving us that great conservative scholar on the current Court, Mr. Justice Stevens. In the stirring words of Sen. Hruska: "Even if he is mediocre there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there." Apparently that is the standard with which we all need to be satisfied, in the spirit of trust and blind faith and all that.
And yet you have not given one example to support your stupid assertion.
The woman reasons at, perhaps a high school level and writes even lower.
Having read her questionaire, her brief in Bush v Gore and her work as lead attorney in the Microsoft cases I can only say that this assertion is bullcrap.
I guess, in addition to fulfilling the proportional representation for women now expected on the court and codified by our illustrious President, she will also represent the marginally qualified as well - a modern day Carswell.
Well, at least you'll be represented.
Even her "guide" through the process, ex-Senator Coats, has admitted she isn't qualified or even very smart.
A lie.
After all in defense of the spectacular Ms. Miers, who by the way has now cancelled meetings with Senators so she can actually read the Constitution, Sen. Coats said: "If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole."
Senator Coats makes an excellent point. The best and the brightest, like you, have done nothing but viloence to the constitution these past 70 years.