She doesn't have to challenge the libs. She only has to vote the right way, and and you certainly don't need brains for that. In fact, brains are just a hindrance to good jurisprudence. Leave the great decisions to Scalia and Thomas and Roberts, then just use Miers as a convenient sock puppet to rubber stamp the ideas of men with brains. I don't know why people think a woman on the Supreme Court should have brains anyway, how much brain work does it take to make coffee or write a cute birthday card?
Sorry, but nine eggheads, even conservative eggheads, is a disaster waiting to happen. Especially ones who believed in strict constructionism, cause there's no knowing where a strict reading of the Constitution will lead you. Could be anywhere, conservative penumbras anyone?
You need people with pragmatic, everyday outlooks to know how laws affect real people. Like, how a parking ticket gets written or how many spotted owls does it take to make a pie. As Bill Buckley often said, "I'd trust myself to the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard,". That's why we need to go the opposite way and find someone of low IQ, lower than mine even.
I'd trust the decisions of nine average Americans just as soon as a bunch of "brilliant" legal scholars---of any stripe. Sort of the way 12 jurors awarded $250 million in the Vioxx case, putting an entire industry in chaos. Now there's jurisprudence for ya, straight from the common man.
Utterly silly. But I re-state my position: I'd trust nine average Americans than nine legal whizzes any day, Vioxx be damned. I've served on juries, and can tell you that there's some pretty solid thinking that goes on there without a single law book. Funny thing, most of our Founders didn't have legal training---and certainly not of they type expected today. And gee, they only managed to write the Constitution. Yeah, we need some real eggheads up there. You've convinced me.