At least that’s what Laura Bush said to Matt Lauer this morning on the Today Show
Joining her husband in defense of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Laura Bush today called her a “role model for young women around the country” and suggested that sexism was a “possible” reason for the heavy criticism of the nomination.
Asked by host Matt Lauer if sexism might be playing a role in the Miers controversy, she said, “It’s possible. I think that’s possible. . . . I think people are not looking at her accomplishments.”
Now, let me say that I respect Laura Bush as a person and think she’s been an excellent First Lady — at the same time, though, I regret the fact that “First Lady” has now become a semi-official position and the American taxpayer has been forced to finance the personal staff of the person who just happens to be married to the current occupant at the White House. That respect notwithstanding, though, this comment is ridiculous. One can question the wisdom of Miers’ appointment to the Supreme Court without being anti-woman, especially considering the fact that there are at least two women out there — Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen — who are quite obviously more qualified than Ms. Miers to sit on the high Court. Nonsense, Laura, pure nonsense.
Michelle Malkin for one, isn’t very thrilled with Mrs. Bush at the moment.
The President, meanwhile, continues repeating the same defenses of his nomiee that weren’t working last week:
President Bush repeated the themes of his earlier defenses of Miers, whom he named Oct. 3 to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
“She is a brilliant person,” he said of Miers. “Just because she hasn’t served on the bench doesn’t mean she can’t be a great Supreme Court justice.”
Nobody that I’m aware of is saying that Miers is brilliant, in her field. The problem with her appointment is that throughout her legal career she’s demonstrated no prowess or interest in Constitutional Law, which is the meat and potatotes of Supreme Court Jurisprudence. Forget about Roe v. Wade, where does she stand on the expansion of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, the 4th Amendment, the Takings Clause, or Federalism ? And I won’t even get into some of the more arcane areas of the law the Justices of the Supreme Court are required to deal with on a daily basis.
The answer is that nobody knows her opinion on any of these issues or what her view of the role of the Courts is. And that is precisely the problem.
As things stand now, I oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and it would take some serious statements on her part addressing the issues outlined above to change my mind. Of course, according to Laura, that just makes me a sexist.
And there’s still more on Miers.
Update: Todd Zywickiweighs in on the sexism charge
Previous Posts:
More On Miers
Solving The Miers Puzzle
Publius v. Harriet Miers
Why Harriet ?
Harriet Who ?
