Great editorial by the Editorial Board at SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER (credit to BUZZFLASH) today raising the legitimate question about Miers' qualifications. It is obvious she is not "exceptionally well qualified" as George Bush has eluded.
More below:
This leads me to the following question of my fellow moderates and liberals: Do we want an idiot (as ineffectual she may ultimately be) or a thoughtful scholar of the Constitution, even if we are fundamentally opposed to many of his/her views?
An excerpt:
Has she so much as handled a case involving the Constitution, written an article on a constitutional issue or taught constitutional law? In what memorable public debates on constitutional law has she partaken?
The Wall Street Journal's Randy Barnett writes, "Nothing in Harriet Miers' professional background called upon her to develop considered views on the extent of congressional powers, the separation of powers, the role of judicial precedent, the importance of states in the federal system, or the need for judges to protect both the enumerated and unenumerated rights retained by the people."
Bush calls her "exceptionally well qualified." That means she's the exception to the rule, that among all the qualified, competent, even brilliant jurists in the federal court system, or attorneys who practice constitutional law or scholars who write and teach about it, she stands out as an exception to their comparative mediocrity.
I look to my fellow Kossacks for your view....