Another defense of Miers that misses the mark
Matthew Scully in a New York Times op-ed defends the intelligence, diligence, and decency of Harriet Miers. Fine. No one has questioned those things. What they have questioned—and why they oppose her for the Supreme Court—is (1) her lack of any demonstrated conservative principle, and (2) her lack of any experience in, engagement with, or developed philosophy of constitutional law. And Scully has not a single word to say on those two subjects.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 14, 2005 12:21 PM | Send