Messenger drowns out message

First thing I thought of when I saw this. How does anyone think that asking Anita Hill to write about a Supreme Court nomination is a good idea?

But was John Roberts chosen because he's the best choice for the court or because he may easily be confirmed? And why not choose a woman to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court? Or use this as an opportunity to nominate the first Latino to the court?

Not surprisingly, the answer to these questions has to do with the politics of confirmability. One thing is certain: If nominees are selected based on the very narrow and elite credentials that brought us John Roberts, a wide range of equally qualified, more diverse candidates will never even be considered.

The "politics of confirmability,"...I like it! There is merit to an argument about "narrow and elite credentials" and it ought to be discussed. But wow...

Asking Anita Hill to get within 100 yards of a SC nomination is like as if we asked Richard Nixon to weigh in on political corruption--you'll never get to hear what he's saying, you'll be too busy remembering the hubris of the Watergate cover-up. Messenger drowns out message.

Surely, somebody else could have competently made this argument...