In a statement that’s sure to piss off SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers’ critics on the left and the right, Laura Bush cries “sexism”.
Courtesy of WaPo:
Excuse me?
This comment arose from an interview she did on NBC’s Today Show – a move clearly aimed at the majority of the show’s viewership – women.
Here are some excerpts:
…
Asked by host Matt Lauer if sexism might be playing a role in the Miers controversy, she said, “It’s possible. I think that’s possible. . . . I think people are not looking at her accomplishments.”
If I was Lauer, I would have asked Laura where she got this idea that the rejection of Miers has anything to do with sexism. I haven’t seen any such criticism based on her gender. Have you? As for looking at her accomplishments, the cry from the left and the right is cohesive – “what do those accomplishments have to do with what kind of Supreme Court justice she might be?”.
If you still need more reasons to maintain your opposition to the Miers nomination, take a look at this little tidbit:
Wow.
Being that Laura is usually kept off to the side, this shows desperation on the part of Bush to support his nomination. Laura really is quite the tool here.
I just don’t see what she hopes to accomplish here other than rallying support from really stupid women. Seriously, creating this red herring is a low blow. Ironically though, now that she’s come out with this, those women she’s after for support will find out that her accusation has absolutely no merit.
I just don’t see what she hopes to accomplish here other than rallying support from really stupid women. Seriously, creating this red herring is a low blow.
Look, here are some r-w comments about Miers collected in a diary and here is my sole comment in that diary.
many of the nominally left wing anti-Miers comments on DK have been overtly sexist and ill informed. The right in this country are overtly sexist, racist, homophobic and generally bloodthirsty. They’re upset because they want another John Roberts, another Scalia, and other Thomas.
I’m many things but ‘really stupid’ isn’t one of them and much of the anti-Miers sentiment from the right is fueled by sexism and suspiction of any women who has managed to reach the age of 60, remain unmarried and be smart enough to have succeeded in a very competitive and masculine profession.
I have no idea what sort of SCOTUS justice she will be but I don’t see how she can be worse than the recently confirmed Roberts. Nothing in his background or personal life offers the slightest hope of decency or fairness. Nothing.
Gotta disagree a bit.
By all accounts, Roberts is one of the most impressive Supreme Court advocates of his generation. I’ve heard as much from friends of mine who are very liberal constitutional lawyers. That doesn’t mean that he ought to be on the court, nor that the Dems should have voted to confirm him (I would have liked to see more vote against him). It does, however, mean that he’s clearly at least minimally qualified.
There are, at this point, plenty of women, across the political spectrum, who are distinguished advocates before the Supreme Court, distinguished constitutional scholars, and/or distinguished judges. Miers is none of these things. She’s a toady and a crony. This has nothing to do with her gender (except, perhaps, in so far as the Preznit has a particular penchant for surrounding himself with female toadies and cronies). My fear is that she’ll be the SCOTUS equivalent of Michael Brown (who last I checked was a white man).
There are always opportunities for sexism. And no doubt some of the right’s (and perhaps even some of the left’s) opposition to Miers is sexist. But there’s nothing inherently sexist about saying that Miers is less qualified to serve on the SCOTUS than Roberts.
There are always opportunities for sexism.
Look, the ‘judicial philosophy’ of the right is inherently sexist. We’ve confirmed district judges who believe that women should be subordinate to their husbands and the next decade or two will do much to cement our second class status.
I personally do not care that John Roberts is ‘impressive’, a guy who never has been a judge is now the chief justice of the United States. I’m not impressed by any lawyer who worked in Florida to steal an election and I’m not impressed by a judicial philosophy which will result in the codificatioon of my second class status. I’m distressed that these obvious biases aren’t even a criteria for judging men like Roberts and Scalia and Thomas.
And no doubt some of the right’s (and perhaps even some of the left’s) opposition to Miers is sexist. But there’s nothing inherently sexist about saying that Miers is less qualified to serve on the SCOTUS than Roberts.
I did not say there was. I’m saying that much of the opposition to her nomination is grounded in sexism.
Look, Tavis Smiley had a former Dallas city councilwoman on his show last night who used to work with Meirs and asked her how, on a scale of one to ten, she would grade Meirs when it came to issues surrounding race relations (affirmative action, minority contracting etc). The woman gave her a 7. A 7 is way better than I would expect from a black woman in Texas towards a Bush nominee. I have no idea of her judicial philosophy but hold out considerably more hope with her on the court than another Roberts. And the fact that they didn’t get another Roberts is precisely why the right is so very upset.
So I intend to listen to the confirmation hearings with great interest and hope to hell that her name isn’t withdrawn because the religious right is demanding it.
My characterization of “really stupid women” was based solely on what I have seen of the criticism laid out about the Miers’ nomination and, until someone here pointed out otherwise, I hadn’t seen any sexist commentary. I don’t read dKos, so I have no idea what’s going on over there.
Therefore, I meant that some women would have to be really stupid to believe that opposition to Miers’ nomination was based on sexism. I’ve now been proven wrong.
I apologize if I offended you.
I apologize if I offended you.
You didn’t offend me at all. It’s just that because I had been combing the Miers threads for some substance and actual information and discovered that most of the commentary was of a purely personal nature and that much of that commentary was interlaced with sexism.
I don’t believe this woman will be a gift to liberals but I do think she won’t be nearly as bad as Scalia or Roberts or Thomas or any member of the federalist society. I mean there’s a reason the right is so upset.
It’s just that because I had been combing the Miers threads for some substance and actual information and discovered that most of the commentary was of a purely personal nature and that much of that commentary was interlaced with sexism.
That’s interesting because I’ve been sticking to news reports and blog ramblings (by the blog owners) from the left and right (along with the threads here) and hadn’t seen that.
The main criticisms I’ve seen are 1) cronyism, 2) lack of constitutional law experience, 3) no track record as a judge, 4) not much of a paper trail, etc.
There are enough legitimate reasons to question Miers qualifications so why someone would feel they had to throw in sexist remarks is beyond me – expect for the fact that this is 2005 and we haven’t come as far as we thought we had when it comes to women’s equality. Makes you wonder how long it will take or if it will ever fully happen.
The main criticisms I’ve seen are 1) cronyism, 2) lack of constitutional law experience, 3) no track record as a judge, 4) not much of a paper trail, etc.
Most of these things apply to Roberts too and yet his reception on both the right and left was far more accepting. Here is this morning’s particularly foul example of the sort of ‘analysis’ I’ve been referring to, this time from the ‘left’.
As much as it pains me to say it I do believe that Laura Bush has a point.
I read that Dobson comment last nite and, unfortunately, that is the kind of thing I do expect to see from conservatives like him who believe that women should just be barefoot and pregnant. It’s neanderthal thinking that we have to work so hard to overcome.
I agree with you now – Laura obviously did have a point.
hum. I must admit that in the diary I linked to the writer says that I failed to understand his/her sarcasm and so that wasn’t a very good example of the ‘grassroots’ response I was speaking of. I really cannot tell the difference between sarcasm and honest feeling when folks online are expressing their viewpoints online and elsewhere about her nomination.
I might be stupid after all. heh.
It’s hard to tell online sometimes.
Pew research has come out with a poll that asks how the fact that she is a woman affects their decision about her nomination:
More favorable 22%
Less favorable 3%
No difference 72%
Glad to see it’s such a tiny minority that expresses concern simply because she is female but that just reflects those who were willing to say as much too.
Instapundit weighs in on why he’s opposed to Miers’ nomination. He thinks she’s too liberal.
“GW…you are soooo cool! U and I R friends 4-ever! TLA…Harriet.”
Don’t you just expect the teacher to intercept one of those notes and read it to the whole class?
Seriously, hey?? Her comments are so adolescent. I just couldn’t believe it.
yes, actually I have. from fox news, via thinkprogress:
Hume: Miers Is Qualified (At Least If She Isn’t Compared to White Men)
Leave it to FAUX News to throw that out. I don’t know Hume’s politics but maybe Laura should go on FOX to debate him on the issue.
“And in that context, she looked much better than she would have against a full field, men and women alike.”
Now that is sexist.
Thanks for the quote.
I have no doubt that there are plenty of wingnuts who believe that a woman should not be a Supreme Court Justice or even a lawyer. But there isn’t anything sexist about opposing Miers based on her lack of relevant qualifications.
Corporate law is all about negotiating deals and writing contracts. You end up in court when the deals go sour. You can practice corporate law for years and never go within spitting distance of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court chooses to get involved when there are key issues of constitutional or statutory interpretation to resolve. Someone whose practice has never focused on such issues and who has never spent a single day wearing judicial robes just ain’t qualified, regardless of gender, to sit behind the Big Bench.
Laura sure does get a lot of camera time when Georgie is flailing. I love the idea of her on Extreme Home Make-over in New Orleans.
I only wish I was as stupid as this administration thinks I am.
I haven’t seen any such criticism based on her gender. Have you?
Yes, I most certainly have. Would you like me to find the links from both the right and left? Because I can produce a shitload in the next few days.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Am I the only one that finds that concept absolutely terrifying?
No, especially considering how brilliant she thinks Bush is.