[[Like his personal opinions or not, Robert Bork is one of the most preeminent constitutional scholars presently breathing.]]
His critique of Miers qualifications is a mark against his Constitutional scholarship. He presents it in an academic elitist vernacular. Only scholars like him are qualified in his mind. That flies directly in the face of the Constitution. He is doing a conservative version of Paul Krugman, on a smaller scale. Krugman used to be a respected economist and is now an ideological hack, Bork is meandering down that trail. If Bork's critique were the qualification for sitting on the Supreme Court, John Marshall, perhap the greatest justice in this country's history would never have sat on the court. The fact he is engaging in exactly what happened to him, and he has complained about ever since, does not speak highly of his integrity. He has been getting his face on TV alot, and being quoted, he is showing signs of falling in love with himself and his new found public personna.
Douglas Kmiec is also one of the most respected conservative Constitutional scholars in this country, but he does not agree with Bork, and his opinion piece was written with much more flair, stronger argumentation and less vitriol. Kmiec's oped made Bork's look amateurish, elitist and mean-spirited.
We could dig up constitutional scholars all day landing on both sides of the Miers debate. But simply because you believe Bork is the ultimate Constitutional scholar does not make it so. He is one, but I am not willing to put him on a pedestal, especially with his elitist attitude of who is qualified to sit on the SCOTUS. Right now we have 9 book smart justices, and not one who is life experience smart, None of them have ties to local or state levels, but instead are all products of a federal elite jurisprudence experience. Miers will potentially become the strongest federalist of them all, because she has that background and experience. Scalia showed inconsistency on federalism when he ruled against medical marijuana and argued personal growth of marijuana for medical purposes fell under the interstate commerce clause. Say what ? Now, I have a lot of respect for Scalia and wanted him to be the new Chief Justice, but that ruling against states rights was seriously flawed. It shows that even the most scholarly of justices are not always right, and that could quite possibly be because there is no one with the background or experience on the court to make that argument from personal experience. Book learning can only take you so far. Miers will bring the local, state, and business perspective to the court that currently does not exist.
What other scholars disagree with Bork ? David Yalof: "People are still learning about Harriet Miers. Hers was not a name that quickly came off everybody's lips when people [asked] who are the most qualified people for the court," says David Yalof, a political science professor and expert on Supreme Court nominations at the University of Connecticut.
But Professor Yalof adds, "The issue has never been most qualified, the issue is qualified."
Who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court is a determination made on a nominee by nominee basis by at least 51 US senators. There are no set rules for qualification. Although every past justice has been a lawyer, 41 of the 109 justices had no prior judicial experience.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p01s03-usju.html
41 out of 109, beside Marshall, that includes Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, William O. DOuglas and William Rehnquist.
I would also somewhat strongly disagree with you that Bork is borking Miers. Chief Justice Marshall was a very accomplished man before he was appointed to the bench, more so than even Chief Justice Roberts. Bork's comments have been strictly limited to the lack of any evidence of originialist views on the Constitution. You cannot read Bork's article and think that he has in any way argued against her like what happened to him, where he was slandered and denounced personally as well as philosophically. Keep in mind, also, that at the time of Bork's nomination, there were approximately 100 opinions of his that had been appealed to the Supreme Court, and (if memory serves) not one of those had been overturned.
You can disagree with Bork's opinion, but not his own qualifications to criticize.