Reader Matt writes:
In your Corner post about Miers lack of knowledge to be a Justice – you say, “Given that she has no record and we only have Bush’s word, that has to be the assumption going in. Doesn’t it?”
Quite frankly, no. . . that doesn’t have to be the assumption. Forgive me, but perhaps only a person who opines in a public forum for a living, such as yourself, would assume that a lack of such pontificating denotes a lack of knowledge too. I’ve never written a paper on why I think Season 4 of The Simpsons is the high water mark for the series, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have my thoughts on the matter.
I think it is easier to assume that such a prolific lawyer, and someone who has served the President for so long has some thoughts on Constitutional law. BUT, I wouldn’t ask you to make such an assumption. You don’t have to think anything for the moment, and because you know so little about Ms. Miers at this point. . . that’s probably the best course of action until the hearings.
Sincerely,
Matt [Last name withheld]
PS – being a loyal fan of yours since you started on NR. . . it pains me greatly to write anything critical to you. Please forgive me!!!
Me: Of course you are forgiven (those two hooligans outside your house have nothing to do with me, even if they say otherwise as they beat you senseless).
More seriously, I don’t doubt she has “some thoughts” on the Constitution. I have said more than once she’s obviously a capable lawyer. And at some point I won’t have to keep repeating that I don’t oppose her and that I’m waiting for the hearings myself to make up my mind. But, right now we really only have Bush’s word and her resume to go on. That she is a stealth nominee I think all reasonable people can agree to one extent or another. Stealth nominees have a very bad track record. But, they were necessary to some extent in the past because Democrats controlled the Senate. They don’t now. The stakes are so high, I simply think it is prudent to assume — absent other compelling evidence — that the burden falls on the nominee to demonstrate his or her qualifications. Nobody had to wait for the hearings to know that Robert Bork was qualified for the job because his record was there for everybody to see. Miers record isn’t really there for everybody to see. I think those who disagree are giving her and Bush the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I don’t think this is one of those situations where the benefit of the doubt is good enough.
And for those of you — not necessarily this reader — who think I’m being elitist or snobby because she didn’t go to an Ivy League school or travel in the right circles, give me a break. When was the last time I got weak in the knees over the Ivy League? As for the elitism charge, I don’t necessarily take this as an insult. I’ve written in defense of elitism many times — here for example.
I agree with Matt that there’s little point in arguing about this anymore until the hearings (or until some other new information comes out). And, it remains my hope, that she blows everyone away at the hearings.