Today Beldar continues his defense of Miers by posting a correction to this Rich Lowry post. In short, Lowry reports that a pro-Bush lawyer says unflattering things about Meirs's qualifications, essentially:
Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified.
Beldar's response is a correction in one good sense: He reports that Miers was an editor at Southwestern Law Journal. The rest of his correction seems to be little more than Beldar sticking up for the reputation of regional Texas lawyers. He says that he thinks Meirs's firm was distinguished; that it's not particularly important that she's never practiced con law; that she had big clients, even if she didn't argue any big cases; and that she very well may have written on important issues in private work for her clients that you and I will never be able to judge.
This is pretty thin stuff and I find it unconvincing. If you'll permit the snobbery, Beldar's appraisal of Meirs's schooling tells you all you need to know about where he's coming from. He means it as a defense of Meirs when he says:
. . . when Ms. Miers was a student there, SMU Law School was widely regarded as the second-best law school in Texas.
[Insert your own joke here.]
I feel like a jerk for pointing this out--and there's nothing wrong with regional schools and I'm sure they often turn out very bright, competent lawyers who are great people. But this is the Supreme Court we're talking about and it doesn't seem like too much to ask that maybe we hope for better than what the second-best law school in Texas has to offer?
Update, 12:09 p.m.: For people who insist that the second-best law school in Texas was nonetheless stocked with great minds, I'll refer readers back to Miers's description of Bush as the "most brilliant man" she had ever met.