Choper notes that O’Connor’s constitutional experience was not significantly greater or different than Miers at the time of nomination, and the two women had more in common than not. The difference, he notes, is [inter alia] 20 years.

And that seems a significant difference. Particularly clear now, in light of Greenburg’s book, it seems clear that Bush was no less determined to appoint the third woman to the Supreme Court than Reagan was to appoint the first. Setting aside the merits of selecting nominees based on gender, the nominees Reagan and Bush chose must be assessed in relation to the pool of talent which was available to pick from. While it’s true that Sandra Day O’Connor did not have the resume one might want from a Supreme Court nominee, how many female conservative judges and academics who did have those qualifications were there to pick from in 1981? By contrast, in late 2005, it seems to me that there was a readily available pool of potential female nominees who were vastly more qualified than was Miers, and indeed, were qualified for the post even absent the dreary diversity criterion.

I don’t think that “diversity” is a valid criterion in selecting nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States, but even assuming one buys into it as such, it seems to me that the Miers choice cannot be defended on those terms when there are so many female potential candidates who were (and are) qualified, although I should concede that Greenburg’s point about many of the leading contenders being disqualified for various reasons may undercut this analysis to some extent.