"The most brilliant man I have ever met."

[sleepyaardvark]

Is it just me or is the debate about the nomination of Harriet Miers becoming more nonsensical by the day? Laura Bush seems to think opposition to her nomination is based on sexism and now people on the Left are actually starting to take up this chant as well--even otherwise intelligent people such as Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski. I don't

Comments

[gwytherinn]

Can't say I didn't expect it. Valid opposition as to why a woman or a minority shouldn't be in the position they're nominated for has often been squelched with the sexism or racism card. (In this administration, anyway.)

[sleepyaardvark]

It seems ironic that that's the case when the Right has for so long screamed and hollered about liberals "playing the race card" and so forth.

And I'll admit, the Left's gone too far with doing things like that before, but two wrongs don't make a right--and this administration is worse than anyone.

[gwytherinn]

Can't agree more with you. I don't even want to think about the possibilities if she's confirmed. Another thing that is particularly troublesome is Bush's statement that her religion is her life - she's born again. I don't have any trouble with that as long as you don't try to make it my life too. Of course, being a born again that comes with the territory...

[sleepyaardvark]

Well apparently its not OK to legislate from the bench but its perfectly acceptable to try to enforce the Bible from the bench--at least according to right-wing logic.

[modernlovemyway]

i'd like to see a minority woman be nominated and then see the two sides argue about whether her race or gender was more important. god, i love political science classes sometimes.

[bibliofile]

Heh, that would be fun!

I also love the irony of this administration's using the sexism card when so many conservatives have opposed affirmative action.

Re: I think this sums up bush's reasoning pretty well

[sleepyaardvark]

HA HA. Yep, its as good an explanation as any.

[mickle]

I feel that there has been a sexist bent to some criticism of her, especially on the right. I am no fan of her, but I've heard some statements that bother me, like:

-something to the effect of "No one who went to SMU could ever handle the the intellectual rigor of the Supreme Court." Uh, no, just for those Harvard folks. Elitist much?

-"I don't think she's qualified, but Peggy Noonan doesn't either, so I am clearly NOT a sexist! Because a (conservative) woman said it!" Whenever you have to defend yourself with such an argument, I wonder what your underlying motives are.

Additionally, I am soooooo tired of this "she's an appeal to the woman's seat" nonsense. As if that's the only way a woman could ever qualify for the Supreme Court. Although, given the current situation...

[offred01]

I agree with the elitism part of your quote. I think that it's BS that you have to go the Ivy League to be on the Supreme Court.

As far as the qualifications thing, what makes me think that there may be a sex/gender issue is this: prior male candidates to the Supreme Court have never been justices or judges anywhere else either, were very successful and we haven't heard that there was any backlash against THEM when they were nominated. Hell, we haven't eve heard anything in the media that candidates in the past have been successful when they didn't have a judicial past. Furthermore, John Roberts was confirmed quite easily in spite of being on the bench for less than 2 years and not having any decisions or answering any questions regarding issues like privacy/abortion issues. ::shrugs:: Circumstantial, yes.

For what it's worth...

[kylenivi]

Well if you think about it, have you ever met a well-educated extremely experienced woman who also beleives everything Bush says? See Bush has no choice but to pick an extremely mediocre person.

Re: For what it's worth...

[offred01]

Love your icon.