10-27-05 - 5


What's the real difference between John Roberts and Harriet Miers? Why did Roberts get a "walk" into his seat, with little questioning or protest from the Senate or the media, while Miers is being widely disparaged and ridiculed from all sides? I can't really see much difference in their qualifications. Both have very little background in constitutional law, and both have not revealed their opinions on anything, nor released the records from their most important jobs as lawyers for the executive. Perhaps Roberts is more intelligent, but that's a questionable value judgement in any case which is not a very reasonable way to pick a supreme court justice (real evidence of intelligence would be a valid decision criterion). Some feminists have suggested Miers is being discriminated against because she's a woman, but I think that's pure nonsense. In this case with Sandra Day O'Connor retiring, choosing a woman is almost required to fill a quota, so a female nominee is perhaps subject to less thorough examination than a male.

The real difference seems to me to be that Roberts is a good politician and Miers is not. That is, Roberts is handsome, well spoken, a family man with cute kids, he smiles, dresses well, looks good on camera. Miers on the other hand is a hideous old spinster who looks creepy when she smiles and professes an inexplicable strange love for the president. As usual, America is judging people on the most valid of criteria.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think Miers is a joke of a nominee, I just don't see how Roberts was any more deserving of his quick unchallenged pass into one of the most powerful positions in the country.

No comments:

old rants