Here's the message I sent Taranto in response to this column:
Dear BOTW:
Even more damning than the substance of the wobbly opinions expressed by Miers as documented in today's BOTW is their form. So poor is her written and oral expression that they would have to improve significantly to be considered mediocre, to wit:
"the lack of pay was a disadvantage to the ability of people to serve." - She presumably meant "disincentive."
"I have supported the maternal nurse care that was eliminated, be restored." Awkward and poorly constructed.
"The day-care money that was deleted I have asked be restored because they principally benefit women and minorities in my view." Singular "money," plural "they."
"The construction of housing that was large in number, close together, close to the street where there wasn't a place for children to play or really just seemed so compact that it didn't seem like it was planned properly to provide the kind of environment where people could really exist and have much of an existence." - Housing that was "large in number"? Also: error in parallel construction, redundant, etc.
As I'm sure you know, in his NY Times column today David Brooks exposed other examples of Miers' painfully incompetent writing.
Elitism charges be damned, I'll say it: Harriet Miers manifestly lacks the intellectual ability necessary to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Sincerely,