I oppose the Miers nomination.

While I have strong confidence that Ms. Miers, based on what has been reported of her religious practice and faith, would cooperate in scaling back the dramatic and unconstitutional overreach that is Roe v. Wade, that is not a reason to support her nomination.

Even less of a reason would be to fill a "woman's seat" on the bench. This is an insult to women. This country has travelled beyond the need for a "quota system" for female accomplishment, and women take leading positions in the large majority of professions, based on their merit. There are women jurists with excellent legal and judicial experience, nominate one of them by all means.

Conservatives insult the many principled stands they've taken on originalist interpretation and against judicial activism, if they yield in supporting Miers merely because she will support decisions they seek. That is the fabled litmus test that Democrats seek to impose -- when Republicans are nominating jurists, that is -- and should be anathema to "right thinking" (as in correct thinking) observers.

Miers has a good legal background, but her accomplishments bear little relationship to the actual processes of jurisprudence. A fine judge, she might yet be, but perhaps this might be demonstrated by a lesser judicial appointment, say the US Federal Court or the US Court of Appeals? I really don't like the idea of on the job training for a Supreme Court Judge.

Links: Dawn Patrol at Mudville Gazette