Thursday, October 13, 2005


In your Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman answers the musical question, "Is Harriet Miers a victim of sexism?"

In truth, Miers' gender was one of her two attractions for President Bush -- the other being her canine worship of him. But the complaints about her weak credentials would be made even if she had testosterone coming out of her ears. ***

Finding a reason to reject this nomination is about as hard as finding sand at the beach. What's tough is coming up with any rationale that would fool a 4th-grader. ***

The truth is that the aggrieved right-wingers would be giving each other champagne showers if Bush had picked any number of skirt-clad judges-including Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones and Karen Williams. Their beef with Miers is that they don't know if she's conservative but do know she's underqualified.

Mr. Chapman must have written this column before the revelation that Miers is an evangelical Christian who's church is "almost universally pro-life."

Surely that would have alleviated his concerns.

Mr. Chapman also poses a question that should be the first asked if Miers comes before the Senate judiciary committee:
[I]f Bush thinks Miers has the right stuff to serve in the federal judiciary, why didn't it ever occur to him to appoint her to an appeals court first?
The truth is I no longer think there is more than a 50/50 chance that she will ever make it as far as committee hearings.

No comments:


Blog Archive