Why Miers thinks she’s qualified

This is reported in the New York Times:

Though [Senator Arlen] Specter called Ms. Miers “intellectually able,” he said she had a “fair-sized job to do” to become fluent in the language of constitutional law, which will be essential for senators who want to examine her judicial philosophy in deciding whether to confirm her.

“She needs more than murder boards,” Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview, referring to the mock question-and-answer sessions most nominees use to prepare for their confirmation hearings. “She needs a crash course in constitutional law.”

I like Specter’s frank description—echoing Robert Bork’s tough comments the other day—of Miers’s total absence of qualifications as a judge of constitutional law. But I find the Times’ paraphrase of Specter amusing. If Miers has never used the language of constitutional law, how could she have a constitututional philosophy to be examined? It’s like saying, “She needs to learn to speak about history before we can examine her philosophy of history,” or, “She needs to listen to some Beethoven before we ask for her opinion of Beethoven.” Of course, she was already supposed to have an opinion of Beethoven.

Equally as appalling as Bush’s nomination of Miers, is Miers’ acceptance of same. What in the world makes this woman believe she is qualified to practice constitutional adjudication? My guess is that Bush’s selection of her gave her that confidence. Consider: We already know that Miers is the most loyal of Bush loyalists. We also know that such loyalists are apt to trust in Bush the way they trust in God (a credo stated repeatedly by Bush loyalists at the epicenter of Bush loyalty, Lucianne.com). We also know that Miers considers Bush “the most brilliant man she’s ever met.” Therefore, her thinking goes, since Bush picked her to be a Supreme Court justice, she must be qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 09, 2005 02:06 AM | Send