Miers' (Lack of) Qualifications

Echoing my own sentiments regarding Harriet Miers, George Will writes:

It is not important that she be confirmed
because there is no evidence that she is among
the leading lights of American jurisprudence,
or that she possesses talents commensurate
with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's
"argument'' for her amounts to: Trust me.
There is no reason to . . .

If 100 such people had been asked to list 100
individuals who have given evidence of the
reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a
justice, Miers' name probably would not have
appeared in any of the 10,000 places on
those lists.

Left-leaning Columbia Law Professor Michael Dorf agrees:

[M]eaning no personal disrespect to Miers, she
lacks the professional experience that so
obviously qualified Roberts for the job.

A commenter to my previous post raises the following objection:

That's a bit of a precipitous response for a
self-professed empiricist, isn't it? Isn't it
possible--even if it's not likely--that Miers
will perform brilliantly at the Senate hearings
and convince skeptics that she does, in fact,
have what it takes to serve on SCOTUS?
I admit that I'm one of those skeptics, but
to call for her rejection one day after her
nomination--without even giving her the
chance to pass (or fail) in person the clerkship
test that you yourself suggest--strikes me as
very unfair and narrow-minded.

This is a fair point, I suppose. I'd argue, however, that the type of credentials you need to qualify for a position on the Supreme Court cannot possibly be demonstrated during the course of a three-day long Senate hearing. Rather, they're the kind you have to demonstrate over the course of a distinguished legal career. Saying that we should wait and see how Miers performs at the hearings before judging whether she's qualified for the Supreme Court sounds to me a lot like saying we should wait until the playoffs are over to decide whether Bubba Crosby belongs in the Hall of Fame. Even if he has an amazing series against the Angels, he's still not going to be Cooperstown material. I'm sure Miers is a capable attorney, but she simply has not demonstrated, either during law school or in her professional career, that she is one of our nation's top legal minds. I'm not saying that she's not capable of being a good Supreme Court justice. Perhaps she is. But there are any number of candidates who were infinitely more qualified for the job.

Will observes:

Senators beginning what ought to be a
protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet
Miers should be guided by three rules. First,
it is not important that she be confirmed.
Second, it might be very important that she
not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps
rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting
-- should be that her nomination is not a
defensible exercise of presidential discretion
to which senatorial deference is due.

I agree.