When the Miers nomination was announced, I supported it. While I was
mildly disappointed not to have a high-powered legal theorist, that issue
was never a deal-breaker for me. I only changed because I began to doubt
Miers’ conservatism. I fit the profile of educated “elitist” as well as
anyone else around here, but I was perfectly willing to assume that, given
her achievements, Miers was a bright and competent woman. Having read the
excerpts from her writings in David Brooks’ column today, however, I’m
surprised and appalled. No, I don’t think you have to be a great academic
theorist to be a fine supreme court justice. But it never occurred to me
that Miers could be so pathetically bad at presenting her thoughts. I
still don’t doubt that Miers has real-world smarts, yet she truly seems to
lack the minimum ability to express herself in the way that a Supreme Court
Justice must. My overwhelming concern is still with Miers’ views, and not
with her competence. (I suppose her clerks can cover up her
deficiencies.) But after reading her writings as presented by Brooks, I am
shocked and embarrassed.