A Stitch in Haste

Turns out I'm not a lone voice in the wilderness anymore in my rather basic protestation that Harriet Miers is simply not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court:

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.
...
The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who "legislate from the bench."

Indeed. It is astounding how some Miers apologists point to her "not thrilling, but nice" résumé and chant, without elaboration, that she's somehow qualified. I repeat my challenge from a previous post: point to any one item in her career and fully explain how it relates to constitutional law at its most complicated and most important levels.

Some have suggested that her background as the head of a private law firm is helpful, that the Court needs more "corporate" representation. Nonsense -- if that mattered, then why not nominate Bill Gates? (By the way, law firms are not corporations -- go figure.)

Some have suggested that a diversity of backgrounds improves the functioning of the Court. Nonsense -- if that were the case, then the best candidate for the Court would be a convicted murderer -- who would most likely have had significantly more experience with the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments than Miers has.

Why are Miers' apologists so willing to ignore both the distinction between a lawyer and a constitutional scholar and the need for the latter on the Supreme Court rather than the former?

Think of it this way -- Harriet Miers would probably make a fine law professor -- but not a fine constitutional law professor. Who can claim with a straight face that "Supreme Court Justice" is a less important and less solemn position to fill responsibly than "constitutional law professor"?

She is a fine lawyer. And she is patently unqualified for the Supreme Court. The two are not mutually exclusive. The sooner the Miers apologists acknowledge this, the sooner the President can acknowledge his error and move on.