How much of the opposition to Harriet Miers is rooted in sexism? I don't have the answer, obviously, but I would be surprised if sexism played no role. There's still a double standard when it comes to sex, just as there is when it comes to race. In other words, sexism and racism are alive and well. James Taranto, for example, detects racism when Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid questions the quality of Justice Clarence Thomas's judicial opinions. (See here.) Why, then, does he not detect sexism when people question the quality of Harriet Miers's mind? This would appear to be another case of conservative hypocrisy. Nor is Taranto alone. Michelle Malkin thinks opposition to Miers has nothing to do with sexism. I wish it didn't, but I fear it does.
Addendum: Sexism need not be blunt or blatant. Like racism, it can be subtle. A person is sexist if he or she holds men and women to different standards when there is no relevant difference between men and women. Sexism is a kind of injustice (in the Aristotelian sense of treating likes differently or unlikes the same). The test for sexism is a hypothetical one. Ask yourself whether you would have the same attitude toward the person in question, or treat the person the same way, if his or her sex were different. If you wouldn't, then you're sexist. I think Harriet Miers is being held to a higher intellectual standard than a similarly situated man. Please don't misread me. I'm not saying that opposition to Miers is necessarily sexist. That would mean women can't be criticized. Nor am I saying that all or most of the opposition to her is in fact sexist. I'm saying that some of the opposition to her is in fact sexist. Michelle Malkin and James Taranto should admit this. Denying it makes them seem unconcerned with the truth.
At the end of the day, I think that Miers gets a net benefit for being a woman - and that a man with her background would never have recieved any consideration for SCOTUS.
Miers may or may not turn out to be a) a reliable conservative vote; b) an excellent justice; c) someone who drifts left under the pressure of NYT disapproval. We simply don't know - and this "knowledge" is pretty flimsy for SCOTUS picks in general, and even more so for Miers-style stealth picks.
I've found no actual evidence that sexism has any significant bearing on opposition to the Harriet Miers nomination.
Just as with Conservative Phil, I am surprized at the lack of 'audience' participation. Y'all do such good work.