Response to Captain Bogs about Miers

I had a rather lengthy post challenging people to provide actual reasons to be opposed (or even to support) Miers. This aped the same request that I made on the air last week. One of the problems has been the complaint that there needs to be an extensive judicial record so that we (conservatives) can be assured that a nominee won't not be Souter. Oddly enough Souter had that "extensive judicial record" and still betrayed his record.

Is there any measure that works? And, what are the reasons about Miers to have an opinion about Miers?

Marty stepped up to the plate with some information on predicting which nominees will betray their record and which will embrace their record. He told me about his findings yesterday during show prep and I have been meaning to find his finding on his blog.

Captain Bogs responded to my request as well. I want to address that here.

2 reasons to be opposed: Conservatives are worried that she will be another liberal in a conservative (pants)suit, and she is not really up to the job intellectually

Liberal in a conservative suit
Really this objection applies to any nominee. This is not unique to Miers. Let's be honest. We're still going to be holding our breath and peeking between the hand covering our eyes as we read Roberts' decisions over the coming years. I would be doing that with the decisions of my choice candidates. Souter and Stevens and O'Connor and Kennedy have made me not trust any candidate fully. Seeing the amount of vitriol from the conservatives over 2 fairly "stealth" nominees (remember that many were upset with the selection of Roberts) shows that I am not alone in that distrust. This is not unique to Miers and thus if we oppose Miers for this reason we must oppose every nominee besides ourselves (and those that fall into the Marty exemption--more on that in a bit). I must reject this "justification" for failing on it merits. It does not provide a reason to oppose Miers...only a reason to oppose any nominee.

Not up to the job intellectually
This is really an -ist attack of some sort. You pick. Why is the assumption that she is not intellectually capable? Because she did not go to an Ivy League law school? (Elitist attack.) Because she is a woman? (Sexist attack.) Because she is not a judge? (Baseless attack...I know, it doesn't end with 'ist'.) She is one of the top 100 lawyers in the nation, is she not? Top lawyers are not intellectually inferior. In fact, those who think being a lawyer is not some indication of intelligence should go and take the LSAT. Again, this objection to Miers actually does not apply to Miers and I must reject it.

We are still left with no reasons to support her and no reasons to oppose her.

The Marty Exemption
Marty did some research on the Justices of the Supreme Court. He or Captain Bogs can correct me on the specifics (or point me to the post on their blog...I missed that post).

Basically there are 2 types of Justices. One holds true to their philosophies after their appointment and the other abandons their philosophies after their appointment. Marty found the one item in a nominee's bio that was a reliable predictor (over 90% accurate) in the Justices over the past 100 years. That predictor was if the nominee was a law professor. 90% of the law professors stay true to their history. Everyone else...place your bets.

How does that apply to Miers? It does close down the appearance of validity in the claim that Miers should have a judicial record via a prior judgeship. That would not tell us anything.

Two long post in two days after waiting over two weeks to observe the arguements and we are still in the same position: no reasons to oppose and no reasons to support Miers.