Sexism and Other Silliness: We ArenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Looking for Briefs by Jockey or Fruit of the Loom
Administration officials and some supporters of Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court say that “sexism” and “elitism” are motivating those who are questioning her qualifications. The spin might have a chance of passing a laugh test for Teletubbies if the only ones asking the questions buy their unmentionables at the Men’s Warehouse.
It’s time for those who rarely breathe anything but the rarefied air of D.C.’s short-list parties to heed the immortal words of Professor Harold Hill: “Well, ya got trouble, my friend. Right here, I say trouble right here in River City. Why, sure, I’m a billiard player Certainly mighty proud to say. … We surely got trouble with a capital ‘T’ and that rhymes with ‘P’ and that stands for ‘pool.’”
There’s new trouble in River City, my friends, and it starts with “M” and that stands for “Miers.”
The guys and gals at the pool hall know when they’re being hustled. They know lots of women can run a table. But those who generally don’t play outside of Georgetown shouldn’t tell the River City folks that it’s sexist or elitist to want to see a woman’s record or game before they let her or anybody else play in the biggest tournament of all. Sell silly somewhere else.
According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted October 8-10, “just 29% of respondents” in the survey consider Miers to be “qualified to be a Supreme Court justice,” compared with 24 percent who say she is not, “while 51% say they don’t know enough to say.”
Who thinks that everybody in the 24 percent and the 51 percent categories is just sexist or elitist? Have the spinners not noticed that leagues of women are questioning Miers’ credentials and not all of them swing from Ivy vines?
Who knew? Concerned Women for America is just another “good old boys club.” Has it been leaked that we require our members to stick a pin in a female voodoo doll once a day? Are the CWA “female” media spokespeople just playing women on TV? Actually, we’re typecast and wouldn’t have it any other way.
Have they missed the fact that conservative women have supported and continue to drop the names of several sisters we think would make great additions to the Supreme Court bench? Could it be that we also support male nominees because we’ve read and understood enough judicial opinions to know that dippy decisions aren’t genetically linked to chromosomes?
Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, agreed with the sexism charges and “slammed ‘the elites who have been most critical of Harriet, questioning her without finding out more about her,’” according to Bill Sammon and Ralph Z. Hallow writing in The Washington Times on October 12.
Memo to spokespeople: Pinning pejorative labels on your friends who are sincerely seeking more information about Miers, for not “finding out more information about her,” suggests you need to let go of the spin before turning it loose.
But then, what could I know, I’m just one of those “elitist” workin’ gals from a non-Ivy League law school who thinks a smart judge doesn’t need to have strolled Harvard Yard to figure out that penumbras emanate from nontextualist judges and not from the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution’s life and substance are in its text. It doesn’t need any black-robed elitists blowing vapors that obscure its meaning so they can discover fictional rights hitherto unknown to any but those equipped with a Hubble lens.
No one is accusing Miss Miers of being that kind of justice. And those seeking more information about her judicial philosophy so that they can make an informed and intelligent decision about her shouldn’t have their legitimate questions dismissed with cheap shots.
Thus far, the lists of Miss Miers’ published writings, including court briefs, articles in the Texas Law Review, ABA Journal and several one-pagers in the Texas Bar Journal, don’t focus on constitutional law issues. Maybe there’s more. Maybe somebody who has the information ought to lay it out and stop reading us her resume and church tithing report.
Maybe it’s time to listen to all the women who’ve said for years that it’s sexist and patronizing to pick a Supreme Court nominee from only those who wear or burn bras. Wasn’t it the feminists’ favorite Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said “not just any woman will do” as a Supreme Court justice? Refresh my recollection on who called it sexism.
One last note to the handlers. You’re not doing Miss Miers any favors by continuing to emphasize her religious faith. It sounds like she’s being picked for Supreme Court chaplain—not that they couldn’t benefit from one.
The River City folks know better than to sink the cue ball on the break. It’s time for a new rack. Maybe it’s why many are saying it’s time to bring in a known player who has a significant major league tournament record.