What did I support her? For many unoriginal reasons, including:
- The constitution is a wonderfully simple document. I have no clue about Miers's intellect, but I believe any intelligent person can read the constitution, understand it, and then decide and rationalize whether or not a given law is in compliance. I am sure she was capable. It ain't rocket science. My guess is that there are many fields in the legal disciplines that are much more intellectually challenging than being a Supreme Court Justice. International Law or Tax Law come to mind (although, as stated, I am just guessing.)
- The fact that the Supreme Court often splits down the middle proves that brain-power alone cannot lead one, inexorably, to the "correct" determination. If it could (assuming that the present court is composed of jurists who are intellectually qualified and who take their responsibilities seriously) then we should see many more unanimous decisions.
- That said, it is something other that IQ and previous judicial experience that drives the opinions of a Justice: it is ideology, pure and simple. To first order, a conservative genius with a mile-long resume will render conservative decisions, and similarly equipped liberal will render liberal decisions. (Like I said, nothing original here.)
- Given that, I suggest that "finding the most qualified" is not what I want. What I want is someone who is sufficiently qualified and who thinks like I do.
- As (as far as I know) an anti-abortion, judicial-restraint, evangelical Christian, Miers probably thinks "more like I do" than I could reasonably expect among nominees.
Does this selfish approach make me a bad person?