Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
How do you define "brilliant"? Summa at Princeton and at Harvard law, editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review, Dean of Harvard's law school at a young age (the first woman), professor at Chicago, practiced with the foremost litigation firm in the United States.
Does that meet your prima facie case for brilliant? "Without evidence" seems a stretch in any event.
I know she stands for much that you reject in terms of your personal beliefs. But I don't think attacking her intelligence is a very credible way to critique her nomination or at least keep her honest.
|
She has positions achievable by virtue of her knowing the right people and being the right gender at the time. Note Mike did not say she was stupid, and she obviously did a journeyman's job to get the degrees but none of that is prima facie evidence of brilliance.
She is like our other current nominees, a coward, unwilling to speak out. And that pedigree might be enough to get her a job, but it doesn't sound like she stood out any where.
Mike is right, she simply knew the right people. There must be better people amongst the liberal elite, somebody who's actually articulated a public position on something relevant.