I was doing some reading on the Bork nomination and came across the following, which is interesting in light of the discussion over partisanship and failed nominations as well as the question of who attacked Harriet Miers’ resume when she was nominated.
Robert Bork wrote in the pages of the WSJ:
There is, to say the least, a heavy presumption that Ms. Miers, though undoubtedly possessed of many sterling qualities, is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. It is not just that she has no known experience with constitutional law and no known opinions on judicial philosophy. It is worse than that. As president of the Texas Bar Association, she wrote columns for the association’s journal. David Brooks of the New York Times examined those columns. He reports, with supporting examples, that the quality of her thought and writing demonstrates absolutely no "ability to write clearly and argue incisively."
He goes on to criticize her on philosophical grounds in the rest of the column.
At a minimum we have here a conservative icon lionized by many on the right because of treatment as a SCOTUS nominee detailing in rather clear terms why he thought Miers was unfit for the bench. So, I would refer anyone who thinks that Miers was torn down my the MSM or by liberals to the column (as well as the one by Charles Krauthammer that I noted earlier).
Really, there is no basis from which to argue that Miers had to withdraw because of excessive partisanship from the left.
