Strawmen & Justice.

Rush is talking about how the supporters of nominee Miers are arguing with a strawman or two.

One of the them is the charge of sexism. I agree, I do not believe sexism is behind the opposition. Rush is also talking about how charges of elitism do not apply.

This I disagree with. Perhaps, it is not simple elitism the general idea that a degree from Harvard, Yale etc are magical talismans that instill superhuman powers upon their possessors. However, I think many on the right are not dissing Ms. Miers so much as pumping up the court into something bigger than it is.

I will reiterate. What is the job of the Supreme Court? There are three.

1. Settling disputes between contracted parties.
That is two people have a disagreement about what the contract they signed says. This is potentially a difficult area and does require the nominee be a trained lawyer and have experience with contract law. Ms. Miers has this.

2. Statutory law.
That is the interpretation of written laws (i.e. those passed by the legislatures). This again is a difficult area and does require the nominee to be a trained lawyer and have experience with contract law. Ms. Miers has both.

3. Constitutional law.
Regular readers know my take here, however here it is again. This aspect of the job does not require a high falutin law degrees or even a law degree period. It requires a 12th grade reading ability. Remember it was a a highly educated man who hallucinated rights in the "shadows and penumbras" of the constitution.

I think it is this idea the Constitution is beyond the common man that causes the common person to shy away from reading and understanding of the Constitution.

If you have ever try to wade through a a bill being considered for law (or a law itself, I am talking about the actual bill or law not its summary) then you know how convoluted laws can be. The constitution in comparison is clean, concise, and eminently understandable. Now, the Constitution is certainly not "See Dick run. See Spot Run. See Jane Run." but constitutional interpretation does not require the hallucigen of an Ivy League law degree.

Now, some may say but isn't constitutional law the reading of statutes and trying to see if they fit into the constitution? Yes but reading the statutes is only half the fight here and I am not concerned about Ms. Mier's (or any experienced lawyer for that matter) to read and interpret statutes. I am concerned though about lawyers trying to turn the constitution into something more than it is.