The Good Enough Justice
I am remain unconvinced of the White House argument for Harriet Miers. I think the White House argument is back ward, if not upside down. It should not be us the critics who have to prove that Miers is unqualified. It should be the White House who should prove to us that Miers is qualified. The President says that she is the best there is for the Supreme Court, then the burden of proof is on him. And so far he has not proven the case - all we got is "trust me." "Trust me" is not an acceptable argument.
I do not doubt that Miers is a good person with a good heart who want to do good thing. However it is not an argument for the Supreme Court nominee. If it is, my mother would be emminently qualified. The premise for this debate should be that it is the responsible of the President to pick the best mind among the legal professionals to fill the position - the best not the good enough. To say that there were other justices who similarly lacking in experience is to argue for mediocrity. Just because there were mediocre justices before - as there are mediocre ones on the court now - is not a good reason to pick another mediocre one.
A question for the readers to ponder, when you need heart surgery, do you want to be operated by a surgeon that is "good enough," or do you want that surgeon to be "the best."